Back
1996 Supreme(Gau) 92
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
H.K.Sema, P.K.Sarkar, JJ.
State Council of Educational Research and Training Employees Organisation and Ors. -Appellant
Versus
State of Manipur and Ors. -Respondent
Civil Rule No. 325 of 1996
Decided On : 21-05-1996
H.S.Paonam, T.Nandakumar Singh, S.Jayanta Singh
An application for correction of the date of birth in the Service Book must be made within the limitation period prescribed under Note 5 to FR 56(m). A belated application, made after a long delay and at the fag end of the service, is not sustainable. An employee who has acknowledged the date of birth recorded in his Service Book for a long period of time is estopped from raising a dispute regarding it at a later stage.
Headnote:
SERVICE LAW - CORRECTION OF DATE OF BIRTH - LIMITATION - PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION - MAINTAINABILITY - SERVICE BOOK - DATE OF BIRTH - ALTERATION - DELAY - ESTOPPEL - PUBLIC INTEREST - SUBSTANTIAL INJURY - FR 56(M) NOTE 5 - INTERPRETATION - APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION OF DATE OF BIRTH - TIME LIMIT - DELAYED APPLICATION - REJECTION - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an organization representing employees of the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT), filed a public interest litigation challenging an order that allowed the 5th respondent, an employee of SCERT, to retire on superannuation with effect from 30.6.1996, based on a corrected date of birth recorded in his second volume of the Service Book. The 5th respondent had initially retired on 29.2.1996 based on the date of birth recorded in his first volume of the Service Book. The petitioner argued that the correction of the date of birth was not permissible as it was made after a long delay and violated the limitation period prescribed under Note 5 to FR 56(m).
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petition was maintainable as public interest litigation as it prevented an executive act that would cause substantial injury to the public interest by allowing the 5th respondent to continue in service beyond his retirement date and receive pay and allowances from the public exchequer.
Issues: 1. Whether the correction of the date of birth in the Service Book of the 5th respondent was permissible after a long delay and in violation of the limitation period prescribed under Note 5 to FR 56(m)? 2. Whether the 5th respondent was estopped from raising a dispute regarding the date of birth recorded in his Service Book after acknowledging it for a long period of time?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Note 5 to FR 56(m) and held that it intended to discourage stale claims and belated applications for alteration of the date of birth recorded in the Service Book at the fag end of the service. The court held that the 5th respondent's application for correction of the date of birth, made after 33 years of service and just a year before superannuation, was not sustainable. 2. The court held that the 5th respondent was estopped from raising a dispute regarding the date of birth recorded in his Service Book after acknowledging it for a long period of time. The court noted that the 5th respondent had signed and thumb-printed all the pages of his Service Book, which contained the date of birth recorded as 1.3.1938, and had not raised any objection to it until shortly before his retirement.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and held that the 5th respondent was deemed to have retired with effect from the afternoon of 29.2.1996.
2. The facts of the present case is somewhat peculiar, and may be recited briefly. The dispute involved in this writ petition is with regard to the correction of the date of birth in the Service Book of respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 5 entered in Government service on 1.3.1956 as Head Pandit. Thereafter, he was appointed as Theory Instructor on 7.7.1961. The first volume of the Service Book of the respondent No.5 was opened on 17.10.1962. The date of birth recorded in the first volume of the Service Book opened on 17.10.1962 is 1.3.1938. Respondent No.5 signed his volume I Service Book on 17.10.1962, counter signed by the Deputy Director of Education, Manipur. Respondent No.5 also put the thumb impressions of fingers in the first volume of the Service Book. Every page of volume I of the Service Book bears the signature of respondent No.5 upto 7.7.1976. It appears, thereafter volume 2 of the Service Book was opened wef 1.3.1956. In the second volume of the Service Book of the respondent No.5, the date of birth recorded is 1.7.1938. It is mystery as to how the volume 2 Service Book was opened wef 1.3,1956 when volume 1 of the Service Book was opened wef 17.10.1962. This has led to us to come to irresistible conclusion that the volume 2 of the Service Book of the 5th respondent has been prepared well an after thought. Be that as it may, this fact may not be very important for resolving the present dispute.
3. By an order dated 28.2.1996 (Annexure 3), the Governor of Manipur ordered the superannuation of the 5th respondent as Incharge-Director of SCERT wef 29.2.96 taking the date of birth of the 5th respondent as on 1.3.193 8 recorded in first volume of the Service Book. By another order, Shri A. Ibocha Singh, Joint Secretary, Education, Government of Manipur was ordered to look after the work of Director or SCERT in addition to his normal duties until further orders consequent upon the retirement of the 5th respondent wef 29.2.96. However, by impugned order dated 1.4.96, the Governor of Manipur in partial modification of the Government order dated 28.2.1996 as ordered that the 5th respondent shall retire from service on superannuation with effect from the afternoon of 30.6.96 taking the date of birth as on 1.7.1938 as recorded in second volume of his Service Book.
4. In the facts and circumstances, the facts giving rise to filing of the present petition are set out below in seriatim :
(a) The respondent No.5 joined the service on 1.3.1956 as Head Pandit.
(b) Volume 1 of the Service Book was opened on 17.10.1962 and the date of birth was recorded as on 1.3.1938.
(c) Volume 2 of Service Book of the 5th respondent was reconstructed and the date of birth was recorded as on 1.7.1938.
(d) The 5th respondent was retired on superannuation wef 29.2.1996 by an order dated 28.2.1996 on the basis of date of birth recorded in volume 1 of the Service Book as on 1.3.1938.
(e) By impugned order dated 1.4.1996, the date of birth recorded in volume 2 of the Service Book of 5th respondent as on 1.7.1938 was accepted and the 5th respondent was ordered to be retired on superannuation wef 30.6.1996.
(f) Admittedly, volume 1 of the Service Book of 5th respondent was opened on 17.10.62 in which the date of birth was entered as on 1.3.1938, and the 5th respondent acknowledged the date by putting his signature all throughout his service, however, for the first time the 5th respondent raised a dispute with regard to verification/correction of his date of birth by a petition dated 11.12.1995, the same has been processed at various levels culminating in passing of the impugned order dated 1.4.1996.
5. We have hear
