NAGAR NIGAM Vs. KASTOORI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the Appellant on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 137 days in filing second appeal as well as for admission of second appeal on merits.

(2.) THE Appellant has explained the delay in Para No. 1 and 2 of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which are reproduced as under:

(3.) APART from above, I also examined the matter on merits. The Plaintiff/Respondent filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to declare that her date of birth is 05.08.1951 and she should be directed to be retired on completion of 60 years of age from this date. It was pleaded that the Plaintiff was appointed by the Defendant vide order dated 17.07.1980, wherein name of the Plaintiff was mentioned at serial No. 28 and in the column of Date of Birth, her date of birth was mentioned as 05.08.1951. The appointment order was issued by the Defendant and it was a public document, therefore, the same could not have been changed, but subsequently, for the reasons best known to the Defendant, Plaintiff's date of birth was changed from 05.08.1951 to 04.08.1940 and, accordingly, the Defendant had passed an order dated 22.01.2000, retiring the Plaintiff, which is per -se illegal and the said order is liable to be quashed.