JUGRAJ Vs. C T M JODHPUR RLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by Jugraj for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus against the Chief Traffic Manager and the General Manager, Jodhpur Railway. The application is based on a notice served on the applicant informing him that he was to retire from the 1st of July, 1950. The applicant's contention is that the railway authorities have got in their record an incorrect date of his birth, and the correct date of birth is 14th of July, 1897, and, therefore, he could not have been retired on the 1st of July, 1950. He asked the railway authorities to make the correction, but they refused to do so and thereupon the present application was made.

(2.) WE are of opinion that there is no force in the application. In the first instance, from the papers filed by the applicant himself it appears that he was informed by the railway authorities on the 13th of February, 1950, that at the time of filling in the service sheet, he himself had declared his date of birth as 1895, without giving the exact day and month. It is remarkable that in his affidavit there is no categorical denial of this statement in this letter. All that he says in para 2 of his affidavit is that on or before his appointment he had made no declaration; but the declaration mentioned in the letter must have been made after appointment. Further it appears that his date of birth was published in the Railway Gazette of 1947, but no objection was taken by him at any time. He pretends that he never knew of this Gazette. Lastly, we may point out that he bases his case on certain Rules relating to Jodhpur Railway about declaration of birth by each employee. These Rules came into force apparently after he had been employed, but he contends that they are retrospective in operation. Learned counsel admits that there is nothing in these Rules to show that they were to be retrospective in operation. Under these circumstances, he cannot claim that these Rules about declaration of age, which were not retrospective in operation, should have been applied to him. He further says that after the Rules came into force, the railway authorities took declarations about age from each and every employee. That might or might not have been so, but the practice in question also would not make the Rules retrospective as a matter of law. It also stands to reason that the applicant, soon after he was appointed, must have given a declaration of the date of his birth to the railway authorities, and we must hold that the railway authorities had correctly entered the age in his Service Sheet. WE, therefore, dismiss this application. .