Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose between the State of Orissa and Shri Ramanath Patnaik regarding the correction of the respondent's date of birth in the service records. The respondent joined the State service as a Clerk on March 21, 1944, with a recorded date of birth of January 1, 1921, as per his Matriculation Certificate. He retired on December 31, 1978, and later filed a suit in 1981 seeking a declaration that his correct date of birth was January 1, 1925, after his representation for correction was rejected. The trial court dismissed his suit, but the Additional District Judge decreed it in his favor. However, the High Court dismissed the second appeal in limine, prompting the current appeal. The Supreme Court noted that the service record, once established, should not be altered post-retirement unless corrections were sought during service. The court referenced the precedent set in State of Tamil Nadu vs. T.V. Venugopalan, emphasizing that the date of birth entered in the service record must be based on the school record and that the respondent had not attempted to correct the record during his service. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and confirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the respondent's claim was invalid due to the lack of timely correction. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Correction of Date of Birth - Validity of Service Record - Constitution of India, Article 14 - The court held that the service record, once established and not corrected during service, cannot be altered post-retirement. The respondent's claim for a different date of birth was dismissed as he failed to correct the record during his service tenure, leading to the conclusion that the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal. Held that the trial court's decision was to be upheld (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent's date of birth could be corrected in the service records after retirement.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and confirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the respondent's claim for a different date of birth was invalid due to the lack of timely correction.
Law Points
- Service records
- Date of birth correction
- Judicial review
- Limitation period
