State of Orissa & Ors. Vs. Shri Ramanath Patnaik
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.2673 of 1986
(From the Judgment and Order dated 21.2.1986 of the Orissa High Court in S.A.No. 295 of 1985)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 21.2.1986 of the Orissa High Court in S.A.No. 295 of 1985)
Petitioner: State of Orissa & Ors.
Respondent: Shri Ramanath Patnaik
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.2673 of 1986
(From the Judgment and Order dated 21.2.1986 of the Orissa High Court in S.A.No. 295 of 1985)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 21.2.1986 of the Orissa High Court in S.A.No. 295 of 1985)
Judges: K.RAMASWAMY & D.P.WADHWA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 02, 1997
Appearances:
Mr. P.N.Misra, Advocate for the Appellants
Mr. N.R.Choudhary, Advocate for the Respondent
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAWS
Date of Birth – Attempt to rectify the same – Evidence produced subsequently during or after service is of no avail as he had himself endorsed service record and date of birth – Held High Court Committed manifest error in refusing to entertain second appeal – Judgment of High Court and Appellate Court set aside.
Held:
When entry was made in the service record and when he was in service, he did not make any attempt to have the service record corrected. Therefore, any amount of evidence produced subsequently would be of no avail. The High Court, therefore, has committed manifest error of law in refusing to entertain the second appeal. (Para 4)
Cases Reffered:
State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V. Venugopalan JT 1994 (5) SC 337 (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the learned single Judge of the Orissa High Court, made on February 21, 1986 in Second Appeal No.767/81, dismissing the second appeal in limine.
2. Admittedly, the respondent joined the State service as a Clerk on 21.3.1944. According to the Matriculation Certificate produced at the time of the entry into the service, his date of birth is January 1, 1921. On attaining the superannuation, he retired from service on 31.12.1978. He filed a suit in the year 1981 on the basis of the rejection of his representation for declaration that his correct date of birth is January 1, 1925 and not January 1, 1921. The trial Court dismissed the suit, but on appeal, the Additional District Judge, Bhubaneshwar decreed the suit. As stated earlier, the second appeal was dismissed by the High Court. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
3. The controversy is no longer res integra. This Court has considered the entire case law on this point in State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V. Venugopalan JT 1994 (5) SC 337 = ((1994) 6 SCC 302). Therein, this Court has held thus:
“It is well known that the service record would be opened after the government servant enters the service record would be countersigned by the government servant. The date of birth as entered in the school record is the source of material for making entry in the service record.”
4. When entry was made in the service record and when he was in service, he did not make any attempt to have the service record corrected. Therefore, any amount of evidence produced subsequently would be of no avail. The High Court, therefore, has committed manifest error of law in refusing to entertain the second appeal.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the High Court stands set aside. The judgment and decree of the appellate Court stands reversed and that of the trial Court stands confirmed. No costs.
1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the learned single Judge of the Orissa High Court, made on February 21, 1986 in Second Appeal No.767/81, dismissing the second appeal in limine.
2. Admittedly, the respondent joined the State service as a Clerk on 21.3.1944. According to the Matriculation Certificate produced at the time of the entry into the service, his date of birth is January 1, 1921. On attaining the superannuation, he retired from service on 31.12.1978. He filed a suit in the year 1981 on the basis of the rejection of his representation for declaration that his correct date of birth is January 1, 1925 and not January 1, 1921. The trial Court dismissed the suit, but on appeal, the Additional District Judge, Bhubaneshwar decreed the suit. As stated earlier, the second appeal was dismissed by the High Court. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
3. The controversy is no longer res integra. This Court has considered the entire case law on this point in State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V. Venugopalan JT 1994 (5) SC 337 = ((1994) 6 SCC 302). Therein, this Court has held thus:
“It is well known that the service record would be opened after the government servant enters the service record would be countersigned by the government servant. The date of birth as entered in the school record is the source of material for making entry in the service record.”
4. When entry was made in the service record and when he was in service, he did not make any attempt to have the service record corrected. Therefore, any amount of evidence produced subsequently would be of no avail. The High Court, therefore, has committed manifest error of law in refusing to entertain the second appeal.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the High Court stands set aside. The judgment and decree of the appellate Court stands reversed and that of the trial Court stands confirmed. No costs.
