CHITTARANJAN ROY Vs. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a member of Class I staff of the Damodar Valley Corporation, at the material time being an Executive Engineer in the office of the General Superintendent, Transmission, Maithon. The petitioner was originally appointed as a direct 'recruit' on May 10, 1954, and thereafter, he was appointed in the permanent post of assistant engineer, electrical, with effect from March 1, 1960. This will also appear from paragraph 6 of the affidavit -in -opposition as also the annexure 'G' (letter of the corporation dated the 16th August, 1966). At the time the petitioner joined his service his date of birth was recorded on the basis of a birth certificate issued by the Rajpur Municipality as November 4, 1915. This date of birth was also accepted and recorded in the gradation lists subsequently published by the corporation from time to time.

(2.) IT appears that the petitioner on the requisition of the corporation forwarded to it his matriculation certificate which showed that his date of birth as November 1,1914. The petitioner by his representations stated that the age as recorded in the matriculation certificate was incorrect and his real age was as recorded in his birth certificate issued by the municipality. Under the provisions of the Damodar Valley Corporation Service Regulations, the petitioner was to retire on attaining the age of 58 years. The corporation by its letter dated March 9, 1972 (annexure L) informed the petitioner's lawyer that the age recorded in the matriculation certificate was to prevail and that the decision arrived at, on the basis of its circular providing for acceptance only of the matriculation certificate if available as the conclusive evidence of age, was final and that no alteration at this stage was permissible or practicable. Accordingly the petitioner was to retire on October 31, 1972.

(3.) ON the above allegations the petitioner moved this Court in Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction and prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus calling upon the respondents to annul or rescind or forbear from giving effect to the annexures 'L' and 'L -I' to the petition which showed that the corporation was purporting to act on the basis of age as recorded in the matriculation certificate, and further that the petitioner was to retire from the service of the corporation on the afternoon of October 31, 1972, the date on which, it is said, the petitioner would attain the age of superannuation. On the above application this rule was issued on April 21, 1972.