CHANDI RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the plaintiff who has lost his case in both the lower courts. He was employed as a clerk on the North-Western Railway on 22nd September, 1925. He gave his date of birth at the time of his appointment as 3rd March, 1901. On the formation of Pakistan the plaintiff was absorbed in the then B. B. & G. I. Railway (succeeded by the Western Railway) and on 25th November, 1947, while furnishing the necessary particulars regarding his service he gave out his date of birth as 20th July, 1904 instead of 3rd March, 1901, though it is the common case of the parties that the latter is the correct date of his birth. According to the correct date of birth, i. e. , 3rd March, 1901, the plaintiff attained the superannuation age, i. e. 55 years on 3rd March, 1955 but on the basis of the date of birth given by the plaintiff on his absorption in the B. B. & C. I. Railway i. e. 20th July, 1904 he was allowed to continue in service even after that date, presumably because of the alleged fraud on the part of the plaintiff in giving an incorrect date of birth which however, was discovered by the authorities on 22nd December, 1956. The plaintiff was charge-sheeted for having given a wrong date of birth.

(2.) THE plaintiff's case is that he prayed for extension of his period of service upto the age of 60 years in accordance with the rules of the Railway and in the alternative, prayed for the bona fide leave preparatory to retirement. But his plea was overruled and not only he was not granted extension of service but he was also deprived of the benefit of leave preparatory to retirement and the special contribution to Provident Fund to the extent of 33. 1/3 was withheld by way of punishment. Consequently after serving the necessary notice on the Railway he instituted the present suit in the court of the Munsif, Ajmer (West), on 3rd July 1962 for grant of declaration that the order of his retirement with effect from 22nd December, 1956 was null and void and also that he was entitled to leave preparatory to retirement. He further prayed that a decree for Rs. 767/- deducted from special contribution to the provident fund may be granted in his favour with interest at the rate of 6 per cent from the date of the suit till realisation. THE suit was resisted by the Railway on a number of grounds. THE learned Munsif, by his judgment dated 31st of August, 1964 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal by the plaintiff the learned Civil Judge, Ajmer affirmed the judgment and decree by the trial court and hence this appeal.

(3.) IN State of Assam vs. Padma Ram Borah (l) supra it was held that the State Government had no jurisdiction to pass an order extending the service of the servant after the termination of his service as it could not by unilateral action create a fresh contract of service and that such an order passed after the termination of service was a nullity and could not be sustained. So also in the State of West Bengal vs. Nripendra Nath Bagachi (2) supra,it was observed that retention of service for the purpose of conducting a departmental enquiry is not proper and extension of service beyond date of compulsory retirement for this purpose is illegal.