Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

GENERAL MANAGER (MARKETING) HINDUSTAN FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. & ORS. versus SUBODH CHANDRA DAS & ORS.

Decided
29 January 1988
Judges listed
E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, K.N. SINGH (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1988] 2 S.C.R. 862 · 1988 INSC 31
Also cited as
  • (1988) 1 SCC 594 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

The lst respondent-Subodh Chandra is working as an operator grade-III under the Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. at Sindhri. The date of birth recorded in the register maintained by the Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. was 1.6.1931 and in the usual course he has to retire from service on 1.6.1989 on completion of 58 years of age. He, however, filed a writ petition in the High Court of Patna claiming that his date of birth should be altered to 20th October, 1938. In support of his case he relied on a certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Sindhri. The petition was contested by the Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Judge who heard the petition held that it was not possible to accept the case of the lst respondent that he was born in the year 1938 and he further found that the date of birth as recorded in the register of the Corporation should not be interfered with. The learned Judge, however, passed the following order:

p. 863, margin C

"S. Shamsul Hasan, J.: After the matter had been heard at great length and legal and factual pros and cons had been examined it appeared that the year of the birth of the petitioner being 1931 cannot be assailed nor interfered with. Consequently, Mr. Ojha felt that since the petitioner has his problem domestic or otherwise- and he in 1971 was in fact given to understand that his year of birth would be 1938, some compassionate endowment may be made in his favour. I am entirely in agreement with Mr. Ojha.

p. 863, margin F

I, therefore, dispose of this application with an expression of my desire, which may be treated as a mandate, that the petitioner may be given three more years of service as a special case after his due date of retirement, which could be done by reappointing him for that period. It is made clear that this may not be treated as a precedent for any other

pp. 863–864, margin G

employee of the Institution or in any other case."

p. 864, margin A

We are of opinion that the learned Single Judge having found that the date of birth of the lst respondent as recorded in the register of the appellant-Corporation should not be interfered with, committed a serious error in making an order directing the appellant-Corporation 'as a special case' to reappoint the lst respondent for a period of three more years after his 'due date of retirement', which is 1.6.1989. There was hardly any justification for passing such an order under Article 226 of the Constitution. The reason given by the High Court is wholly untenable. This appeal filed by the Corporation against the order passed by the learned Single Judge before this Court has, therefore, to be allowed. We set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed by the lst respondent. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. N.P.V. Appeal allowed.

p. 864, margin A