Collector Of Madras And Another vs K. Rajamanickam
- SCC(1995) 2 SCC 98
- Neutral1995 INSC 35
- SCR[1995] 1 SCR 243
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an employee's date of birth has been recorded in service records since initial employment and a belated application to correct that date of birth is made several years later, evidence such as horoscopes or oral statements produced at that late stage cannot displace the original entry recorded in contemporaneous official documents like school registers or transfer certificates that were available at the time of service entry. Where an employee has already attained superannuation according to the date of birth originally recorded in service, and a tribunal orders reinstatement for an additional period based on a corrected date of birth, the employee's retiral benefits must be computed as of the original superannuation date, and no recovery shall be made of amounts paid during any period of reinstatement following suspension of the tribunal's order.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. Admittedly, the respondent entered into service in 1958 showing his date of birth as 15-1-1935. He claims to have made an application for correction of the date of birth on 17-4-1986 which was ultimately rejected in the proceedings of the Collector dated 25-1-1993. Thereafter the respondent filed the petition on 27-1-1993 before the Tribunal. He attained superannuation as per the original entry in the records on 31-1-1993. The Tribunal, by its order dated 23- 11-1993, while holding that his correct date of birth is 12- 1-1936, directed the appellant to continue the respondent in service for a period of one year. That order is now under challenge. It is beyond comprehension to believe at the belated stage the horoscope evidence or oral statements. The school register was available when he entered into service which was recorded on the basis of the entries in the SSLC register.
+From the Judgment and Order dated 23-11-1993 of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras in O.A. No. 447 of 1993 99 Volumes could be spelt out of the authenticity of the present alleged entries in the school register or TC.
3. The meat of the matter is that the respondent had attained superannuation on 31-1-1994 even on his own date of birth as contended for. As a fact, he was superannuated on 31-1-1993. By virtue of the orders of the Tribunal when contempt proceedings were threatened against the officers of the appellant, subject to their filing the appeal they reinstated the respondent into service on 7-2-1994 and he remained in office till the order was passed by this Court on 19-9-1994 suspending the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, for seven months the respondent had continued in office. For the period for which he had continued, there shall be a direction not to recover any amount paid to him during that period. In other words, his retiral benefits should be computed as if he had retired on 31-1-1993 only.
4. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
101
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free