1. Dispute regarding the correction of date of birth in service records after retirement from state service. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 613
1997(4) Supreme 351
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
State of Orissa & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Shri Ramanath Patnaik -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2673 of 1986
Decided on 2-4-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : P.N. Misra, Advocate.
For the Respondent : N.P. Choudhary, Advocate.
Important Points
Important Point
When a Govt. servant did not make any attempt to have service record corrected regarding his date of birth during service period, any amount of evidence produced subsequently would be of no avail.
When a Govt. servant did not make any attempt to have service record corrected regarding his date of birth during service period, any amount of evidence produced subsequently would be of no avail.
Subject
Employment - Retirement and Superannuation
Act Referred
SERVICE LAW: .
Headnote
Service Law-Retirement on attaining age of superannuation-Suit for declaration that his correct date of birth was January 1, 1925 and not January 1, 1921-No attempt was made to have service record corrected during service period-Any amount of evidence produced subsequently would be of no avail-High Court committed manifest error of law in refusing appeal against decree of lower appellate Court. (Para 4)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Claim for declaration that the date of birth recorded in service records was incorrect and required correction. (Para 2 )
3. Service records are based on school records and countersigned by the employee; failure to seek correction during service precludes subsequent evidence. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. Date of birth entries in service records, derived from school records and countersigned by the employee, are final if not challenged during service. (Para 3 , 4 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; appellate court decree reversed; trial court judgment confirmed. (Para 5 )
6. What is the source of material for the date of birth entry in a government servant's service record?
The date of birth as entered in the school record is the source of material for making the entry in the service record. (Para 3 )
7. Is subsequent evidence admissible to correct a date of birth in service records if no correction was sought during the period of service?
No, if the entry was made in the service record and the employee did not attempt to have it corrected while in service, any evidence produced subsequently is of no avail. (Para 4 )
Order
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. Venugopalan1. 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.
Appeal allowed.
********
