RAM NARAIN Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner entered service as a clerk in the Jodhpur Municipality on September 4, 1933 and was ultimately transferred to the office of Municipal Board, Pali on July 12, 1948. He served there as upper division clerk from 1951 onwards. He has stated that an incorrect entry came to be made in his service book and 'his date of birth came to be shown therein as 25.8.1914.' According to the petitioner, that incorrect entry appears to have been made on some information given in that behalf at the time the petitioner entered into service' but that he 'did not care much about it' under the impression that no age of superannuation had been fixed for Municipal service. The situation, according to him, altered when the Rajasthan Municipal Subordinate and Ministerial Service Rules 1963 were promulgated where by the Rajasthan Service Rules were made applicable to municipal employees, The matter acquired 'great urgency' when in 1967 the Rajasthan Service Rules were altered so as to reduce the age of superannuation from 58 to 55 years. Apprehending that he might be retired on that basis, the petitioner applied to the Chairman of the Pali Municipal Board for a certified copy of the scholar's register of the Sumer Pushtikar Higher Secondary School, Jodhpur According to that certificate (Ex. 1), the date of birth of the petitioner was July 23, 1920. The Chairman made enquiries and passed an order on April 1, 1961 correcting the entry relating to the petitioner's date of birth to July 23, 1920, in place of August 26, 1914. The term of the Municipal Board expired, and an Administrator was appointed to discharge its functions He made an order on January 22, 1970 stating that the alteration in the date of birth of the petitioner was made irregularly and illegally by the Chairman and it was not therefore acceptable, so that the petitioner was relieved of his duties with immediate effect on the ground that he had already reached the age of 55 years. The petitioner felt aggrieved against that order on the grounds that it was made without hearing him and without making any enquiry, and also because he was a workman and was governed by the Industrial Disputes Act. He therefore filed the present writ petition on May, 28 1970 along with a stay application for restraining the respondents from retiring him until after the disposal of the petition.

(2.) THE Municipal Board of Pali, respondent No. 1, has filed a reply traversing the claim of petitioner altogether. The State of Rajasthan, respondent No. 2, has not filed a reply, but learned Deputy Government Advocate has supported the stand taken by learned Counsel for the Municipal Board.

(3.) I have gone through the relevant record and it appears that the facts were like this The impugned order of the Administrator of the Pali Municipal Board relieving the petitioner from the service of the Board forthwith was made on January 22, 1970 The petitioner filed his writ petition on May 28, 1970, along with the aforesaid stay application. The Hon'ble vacation Judge made an order on May 29, 1970 for the issue of notice to the respondents, with the further direction that the stay application may be listed for orders as soon as the Municipal Board was served. The Deputy Registrar directed the office to comply with that order and to put up the case on July 6, 1970. He directed further that the process fee and notices should be filed by the petitioner by June 13, 1970. The petitioner filed the notices, in which July 6, 1970 was entered as the date for the appearance of the respondents. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, filed an application on June 3, 1970 reporting that service of the notices had been effected on the respondents of May 30, 1970 and stating that 'despite, the fact that the case should be listed before the Court after one week', it had been fixed for the scrutiny of the service on July 6, 1970. He stated that the period of one week would expire on June 5, 1970, and prayed that the case may be ordered to be listed for orders 'immediately'. The case thus came up before the Hon'ble Vacation Judge on June 9, 1970 when he made the following order - No one appeared to oppose the stay application. In the circumstances the operation of the order of the Administrator date 22.1.70 - amending the date of birth of the petitioner shall remain stayed. The learned Counsel for the Municipal Board, however, made an application on July 6, 1970 for the withdrawal of that order on the ground that the Board had been served for appearance in court on July 6, 1970 whereas the stay application was taken up for order on June 9, 1970 and the stay order was obtained on the basis of a mis -statement before the court. The petitioner opposed that application in his rejoinder dated July 15, 1970. The matter was heard on September 16, 1970 when the stay order was recalled and the stay application was rejected on the ground that the order dated June 9, 1970 was improperly obtained from the Hon'ble Vacation Judge by giving an incorrect impression about the date for the appearance of the respondents.