State of Orissa Vs Dr. Miss Binapani Dei

Petitioner: State of Orissa

Defendant: Dr. Miss Binapani Dei

7 February, 1967

1967 AIR 1269, 1967 SCR (2) 625

Statutes Referred:

The Constitution of India

Cases Referred:

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1968 SC 240 (8)

Babhoti Yadav v. U.P Bridge Corporation 1968 SC 292 (11)

Facts of the Case:

1. The petitioner was a degree holder M.B.B.S from the Punjab University in the field of gynaecology and obstetrics from Madras University and diploma from London, so he was appointed by the orissa government as assistant surgeon in the orissa medical services. So in the records, the date of birth of the candidate is recorded was April 10, 1910 which was also verified by his father and accepted the correct date of birth that was mentioned there and as a record or history the orissa government and officers of the department also recorded the same. But after completing the age of 55 years, the age of reannuation was raised to 58 years according to the government servants who were retire after December 1, 1962.
2. The writ petition was also filed in the High Court stating that the retirement policy passed by the State Government was contrary to law and against the constitutional law and the principles of natural justice. With that some anonymous letters were also addressed to the accountant general of the state to show cause the reason behind the birth certificate issue that was not verified as per the rules.

Issues Raised

1. Why the date of birth was verified wrong?
2. Whether the discreted age will fall under the new retirement act passed by the government?
3. Whether the pension be sanctioned according to the retirement act?

Parties Contention

Petitioner

1. The petitioner has filed the writ petition stating that the date of birth was verified by the medical officials and then the appointment was made in the favour of the petitioner to join the position for which he has recruited.
2. But at the time of retirement, at age 55 new rule book of the retirement act does not permit the age of 55, it allows only age of 58 which was mistaken at the time of verifying the date of birth.

Defendant

1. The defendant stated that the date of birth was recorded maliciously and arbitrarily to reffix the matter.
2. The jurisdiction was also claimed that the suit will be in the discretion and also arises the issues of regularity of the enquiry.

• Hence, no intervention will be tolerated in the High Court.

Judgement

1. The court has decided that the matter of verification of the date of birth was relevantly very important to decide the age matter according to the retirement act but in this case the recording of the date of birth was done incorrectly which was not be permisscible by the system.
2. So the court keeping aside the state decision and had state and declared that due to the negligence of system, the system shall take the responsibility of the mistake and further more the retirement act should cover the issue of the petitioner.

Rule of Law

The basic rule of law that was applied here was that the retirement act shall prevail all the pensioner to provide their money to them as it’s their responsibility to give appropriate services.

Comment

According to my personal opinion, the court has taken the appropriate decision that the petitioner shall prevail the benefit of the act. Hence the mistake will be bear by the system.

Conclusion

To conclude the above case, the court’s decision was on the right track through the governing of the system must be restructured which might not avail any chance of mistake to anybody.