SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(SC) 1229

G.B.PATTANAIK, V.N.KHARE
Hari Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent


(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) THE appellant entered government service and in the service-book his date of birth is recorded as 1-12-1943. On that basis he would have superannuated on 30-11-2001. The competent authority however has passed an order retiring the appellant from service treating his date of birth to be 17- 7-1936. This order is on the basis that when the appellant entered for training in 1961, his date of birth being 1943 he could not have got that training, inasmuch as he had not completed 19 years of age, as required under the rules. The learned counsel for the appellant however controverts this position, inasmuch as, according to him, it is only for a substantive appointment and not for training. We are not however delving into an inquiry on this aspect inasmuch as, in our opinion, the impugned order of the Government cannot be sustained as concededly the Government never put the employee on notice to indicate that the date of birth as entered in the service-book is incorrect though it could have done so. Since no notice has been given to the employee concerned for accepting a date of birth other than the one entered in the service-book, the impugned order o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top