The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the correct date of birth and its impact on the computation of retiral benefits.

Headnote:
Date of Birth - Service - The court held that the respondent's correct date of birth was 12-1-1936, and despite the belated stage of presenting evidence, the school register and SSLC register entries were considered authentic. The respondent had attained superannuation on 31-1-1993, and the appeal was allowed, directing that his retiral benefits should be computed as if he had retired on 31-1-1993 only.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent entered into service in 1958, showing his date of birth as 15-1-1935. He claimed to have made an application for correction of the date of birth on 17-4-1986, which was rejected in 1993. The Tribunal directed the appellant to continue the respondent in service for a period of one year, and the order was challenged.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent's correct date of birth was 12-1-1936, and he had attained superannuation on 31-1-1993. The appeal was allowed, and it was directed that his retiral benefits should be computed as if he had retired on 31-1-1993 only.
Issues: The issues revolved around the correction of the respondent's date of birth, the authenticity of the school register and SSLC register entries, and the computation of the respondent's retiral benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the authenticity of the school register and SSLC register entries to determine the correct date of birth. It also considered the respondent's superannuation date and directed the computation of his retiral benefits.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and it was directed that the respondent's retiral benefits should be computed as if he had retired on 31-1-1993 only.

Order

1. Leave granted.

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. 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.

For Citation: (1995) 2 SCC 98

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis