Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered a civil appeal arising from a Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal order that allowed a government employee to correct his date of birth and continue in service beyond superannuation. The respondent employee entered service in 1958 with his date of birth recorded as 15.01.1935. On 17.04.1986 he applied for correction claiming 12.01.1936 as his correct date of birth. The Collector rejected the application on 25.01.1993, and the respondent attained superannuation on 31.01.1993 as per the original service record. The respondent then filed a petition before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal on 27.01.1993; the Tribunal by order dated 23.11.1993 held his correct date of birth to be 12.01.1936 and directed the appellants to continue him in service for one year. Under threat of contempt proceedings and subject to the present appeal, the appellant reinstated the respondent on 07.02.1994. The respondent continued in service until 19.09.1994 when the Supreme Court suspended the Tribunal's order. The core legal issues were whether horoscope evidence and oral evidence could be relied upon at a belated stage to correct date of birth when contemporaneous school register and SSLC entries were available, and whether retirement benefits should be computed from the actual date of superannuation and interim payments recovered. The appellants contended that such belated correction based on horoscope and oral evidence was impermissible and that the original entry based on the school register and SSLC register should prevail. The respondent claimed his correct date of birth was 12.01.1936 and sought continuation in service as directed by the Tribunal. The Supreme Court found it beyond comprehension to believe horoscope evidence or oral statements at that belated stage, because the school register was available when the respondent entered service and the service record was made on the basis of entries in the SSLC register. Accordingly, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and held that horoscope and oral evidence could not be relied upon. On the question of relief, the Court directed that the appellant would not recover any amount paid to the respondent during the seven-month interim period, but retirement benefits should be computed as if the respondent had retired on 31.01.1993. The appeal was allowed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Correction of Date of Birth - Belated Correction Claim Rejected - Not mentioned - The respondent entered service in 1958 with date of birth recorded as 15.01.1935 and sought correction to 12.01.1936 on 17.04.1986. The Court held that horoscope evidence and oral evidence could not be believed at a belated stage when the school register and SSLC register entries were available at the time of entry into service. Held that the original entry in the service record is valid. (Paras 244-E-F) B) Practice and Procedure - Interim Relief and Recovery - No Recovery of Interim Payments - Not mentioned - The Tribunal directed continuation of service beyond superannuation, and the appellant reinstated the respondent under threat of contempt proceedings pending appeal. The Supreme Court suspended the Tribunal order and held that amounts paid during the seven-month interim period would not be recovered, but retirement benefits should be computed as if retirement had occurred on 31.01.1993. Held that interim payments are not recoverable but retirement benefits calculated from actual superannuation date. (Paras 244-H, 245-A)
Issue of Consideration
Whether horoscope evidence and oral evidence can be relied upon to correct date of birth at a belated stage when contemporaneous school register and SSLC entries are available; and whether retirement benefits should be computed from the actual date of superannuation and whether interim payments made during the period of service under the suspended Tribunal order should be recovered.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The Tribunal's order dated 23.11.1993 was set aside. Horoscope evidence and oral evidence could not be relied on at a belated stage; the entry based on the school register and SSLC register was valid. The appellants were directed not to recover any amount paid to the respondent during the seven-month interim period, but retirement benefits were to be computed as if the respondent had retired on 31.01.1993.
Law Points
- Belated correction of date of birth cannot be based on horoscope or oral evidence
- contemporaneous service record based on school register or SSLC entry is valid
- interim payments made under a suspended tribunal order are not recoverable
- retirement benefits must be computed from actual date of superannuation
