GENERAL MANAGER EASTERN RLY Vs. KSHIRODE CHANDRA KHASMOBIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from an order made by J.P. Mitter, J, making absolute the Rule obtained by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution and setting aside the order of the Railway Administration retiring the petitioner on the 19th October, 1956 as having reached the super-annuation age.

(2.) The facts of the case may be stated at the outset. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant in the Traffic Department of the East Indian Railway Company in the Company days on the 22nd April, 1921. The age recorded in his service record then was 19 years 6 months on appointment. The East Indian Railway Company was taken over by the State i.e. by the Government of India on the 1st January, 1925. On the 15th November, 1940 the petitioner made an application stating that his age was 18 years 1 month and 21 days on the date of appointment. This was about 20 years after his joining the service. In that letter, a copy of which has been produced by the petitioner and annexed to his petition, he stated that he joined the service under the Administration on 22nd April, 1921, but unfortunately his age was recorded 19 years 6 months. He, therefore, writes

(3.) The Railway Administration immediately on getting this letter called for an explanation from the petitioner. This letter calling for an explanation was dated 30th November, 1940. In that letter the Railway Administration stated that the date was attested by the petitioner himself. Therefore, an explanation was sought why this wrong date was given at the time and attested by him. It was stated also in that letter that there was no justification for altering the existing record of age. Neither the petitioner gave any explanation nor was the record altered. The matter rested there in 1946. It was revived again in 1946 when the petitioner again wrote to the Railway Administration for correction of his age on the 7th May, 1946. Finally on the 27th June, 1946, the Railway Administration again called for an explanation from the petitioner saying "You are, therefore, requested to let me know the satisfactory reason as to why you had given the wrong age at the time of your appointment." The explanation was this time given on the 19th September, 1946 by the petitioner in these terms: