CIDCO versus VASUDHA GORAKHNATH MANDEVLEKAR

Citation: [2009] 9 S.C.R. 427 · Decided: 15-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

> 
(2009] 9 S.C.R. 427 
CIDCO 
v. 
VASUDHA GORAKHNATH MANDEVLEKAR 
(Civil Appeal No. 3615 of 2009) 
MAY 15, 2009 
., 
fS.8. SINHA AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
Evidence Act, 1872: s.35 
A 
B 
Record of death and birth maintained by the statutory c 
authorities - -Admissibility of - Held: Such entries are 
admissible in evidence in terms of s.35 and would prevail over 
an entry made in the school register. 
According to appellant-Corporation, date of birth of 
respondent was 2.10.1948. As per respondent, her date D 
of birth was 2.10.1950. Respondent filed writ petition 
which was aUowed. Hence the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1, The office records categorically showed 
• that the date of birth of the respondent was 2.10.1950. A · 
larg11 number of documents" were produced in support of 
the said contention by the respondent. In the gradation 
list of Field Officer as on 1.4.1986 issued on 11.4.1986, the 
respondent's name figured at serial No.17 show"ing the 
date of birth to be 2.10.1950. The same date of birth was 
shown in the seniority list. Yet again, in the retirement list 
of CIDCO employees, the respondent's date of birth has 
1 been shown to be 2.10.1950. [Para 14] £434-E-G] 
2. A list of employees retiring in the year 2006 was 
published on 30.9.2005 wherein the respondent's name 
did not figure. In fact, it was shown that in other 
documents, the year of her superannuation was shown 
427 
F 
G 
H 
428 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009) 9 S.C.R. 
A to be 2008. Appellant issued a memo. The respondent 
replied thereto by a letter dated 19.4.2005 wherein she 
categorically mentioned that she had produced the copy 
of the birth certificate issued by the Panvel Municipal 
Council on many occasions. She had also produced 
B copy of the graduation certificate and birth certificate 
frorifthe said Council. She, therefore, requested the 
y 
appellant to accept her date of birth as 2.10.1950. The 
Municipal Council in its letter dated 28.12.2007 issued to 
the Manager (Labour) CIDCO, not only disclosed the date 
C of birth of the respondent but also her other sisters, 
brothers. Veracity and/or genuineness of the said 
. certificate is not in question. Although the Municipal 
Council came into being in 1976, the statutory records of 
birth and death used to be maintained by its predecessor, · 
0 the Gram Panchayat. The Panvel Municipal Council ,. 
addressed a letter to the Manager (Labour) of the 
appellant stating that the said certificate is issued as per 
the original record of deaths and birth with the Municipal 
Council. [Paras 15 and 16] [434-H; 435-A-F] 
E 
3. The appellant for the first time, by its office letter . 
dated 4.10.2006 stated that the employees mentioned 
therein including the respondent would retire in the 1 
month of October 2006 .. The order dated 26.2.2007 p~~l!~d 
by the Manager (Personnel) of the· appellant stated the 
F date o( birth of the respondent as 2.10.1948, which runs 
into 23 pages. However the reasons assigned by the said 
authority are wholly unacceptable. Some of the reasons 
assigned by him are perverse. [Para 17] [435-G-H; 436·· 
A] 
G 
H 
4.1. Only because the respondent for some time I 
worked in the personnel department, cannot be held to 
constitute sufficient proof to show that an interpolation 
was made at her instance particularly when the certificate · 
issued by the Panvel Municipal Council was available 
CIDCQ v. VASUDHA GORAKHNATH 
429 
MANDEVLEKAR 
with the Corporation ·as far back as in the year 1976. If A 
an allegation is made that a lower grade employee was 
responsible for withholding the said document from the 
higher authorities, proof therefor was necessary. It is 
wholly unlikely ~hat the seniority list of the officers which 
are prepared by the higher ·authorities would contain the 
B 
same mistake as purported to have been committed by 
the lower authorities. (Para 18] [436-8-C] 
4.2. Appellant prima facie is bound by its own records. 
If any fraud is alleged, it must be proved. Only because 
C 
there appears to be a so-called interpolation, the same by 
itself would not lead to a conclusion that the respondent 
had supplied a wrong date of birth. [Para 19] [436-D-E] 
5. The Deaths and Births register maintained by the· 
statutory authorities raises a presumption of correctness. 
D 
Such entries made in the statutory registers are 
admissible in evidence in terms of Section 35 of the 
Evidence Act. It would prevail over an entry made 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.