Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a service dispute between a railway employee and the Union of India concerning the employee's date of birth and consequent retirement. The appellant had entered railway service as a Shunting Porter on April 26, 1955. According to the service record, his date of birth was declared to be January 22, 1926. On January 7, 1984, the appellant was informed that he would retire on January 31, 1984 after attaining superannuation on January 21, 1984. The appellant responded that his date of birth was January 22, 1936, making the retirement order incorrect. He initially filed Writ Petition CWJC No.353 of 1984 before the High Court, which was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected that petition on the ground that the Union of India was not made a party. The appellant then filed Original Application No.306 of 1989, which the Tribunal dismissed on April 4, 1990 on the ground of res judicata. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court by special leave. The appellant contended, through senior counsel Shri Sanyal, that his actual date of birth was January 22, 1936, as reflected in periodical medical inspection reports, and that the respondents deliberately withheld relevant documents. He sought a declaration that he was not liable to retire until attaining the age of 58 years. The respondents stated before the Tribunal that the service record was required to be produced in the High Court and was entrusted to Mr. P.C. Ghose, D.S.(G), to meet their advocate Mr. A.B. Ojha. According to an endorsement by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer on November 29, 1988, the service record and file were taken by Mr. Ghose to their advocate. When the record was requested back by letter dated December 23, 1988, the advocate stated that no such paper was with him. The respondents also contended that the service record was manipulated and the service register removed by the appellant in connivance with the Officer Superintendent (G). The Supreme Court observed that the service record was not available and that there was paucity of authentic material. The core legal issue was whether the appellant was liable to retire on January 31, 1984 based on the recorded date of birth of January 22, 1926, or whether he could continue in service for ten more years treating his date of birth as January 22, 1936. The Court reasoned that in view of the missing and allegedly manipulated record, it was difficult to place implicit reliance on the appellant's contention. It noted that the Tribunal was right in dismissing the petition, though for different reasons, and that no relief could be granted. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Retirement and Date of Birth - Correction/Determination of Date of Birth - No specific statute cited - The dispute concerned whether a railway employee's date of birth was 22 January 1926 requiring retirement on 31 January 1984 or 22 January 1936 entitling him to ten more years of service; the service record was missing and alleged to have been manipulated or removed by the employee in connivance with an officer. The court held that in the absence of authentic material and due to paucity of record, it could not place implicit reliance on the employee's contention; the Tribunal was right in dismissing the petition though for different reasons, and the appeal was dismissed with no costs. Held that no relief could be granted to the appellant. (Paras not numbered in original judgment)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant was liable to retire on January 31, 1984 on attaining superannuation based on date of birth January 22, 1926, or entitled to remain in service for ten more years treating his date of birth as January 22, 1936
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; no costs. The Supreme Court held that in view of the state of record and paucity of authentic material, it could not place implicit reliance on appellant's contention; the Tribunal was right in dismissing the petition, though for different reasons.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on employee to establish altered date of birth
- official service record controls retirement unless corrected
- no relief based on mere assertion when service record missing or manipulated
- retirement age 58 years
- superannuation based on recorded date of birth
