LexSHEO NANDAN SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
SHEO NANDAN SINGH
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 22, 1995
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.)
Service Law :
Date of birth-Declaration in service record-Superannuation on the
C basis oj-{]nsuccessfully challenged before the T1ibunal-Dismissal-Ap-
peal-Paucity of-Authentic record-Employee held not entitled to the relief
The appellant, who entered Railway Seriice as Shunting Porter, was
to retire on January 31st, 1984 (AN) on the basis of his date of birth
declared in the service record i.e. January 22, 1926. He unsuc~essfully
D challenged the superannuation order before the Tribunal. The employer
took a stand before the Tribunal that the record was manipulated and
service register was removed from record by the appellant in connivance
with the Office Superintendent.
In appeal to this Court it was contended for the appellant that he
E
had declared his date of birth as January 22, 1936 but the respondents
have deliberately withheld the service documents and consequently the
appellant was entitled to remain in service for 10 more years. The respon-
dents took a stand that the file relating to service record of the appellant
was missing.
F
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
HELD : In view of state of record and paucity of the authentic
material on record, it is difficult to place implicit reliance on the conten-
tion of the appellant. The Tribunal, therefore, was right in dismissing the
G petition, though for different reasons. Under these circumstances, no relief
can be given to the appellant. [578-C-D]
H
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.4.90 of the Central Ad-
576
r
S.N. SINGH v. u.o.r.
577
ministrative Tribunal, Patna in 0.A. No. 306 of 1989.
S.B. Sanyal, Sanjay Kr. Ghosh and Deba Prasad Mukherjee for the
Appellant.
N.N. Goswami, AK. Verma, W.A Qadri and V.K. Verma for the
A
Respondents.
B
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
The appellant entered Railway service as Shunting Porter on April C
26, 1955. It would appear from the service record that his date of birth was
declared to be January 22, 1926. On January 7, 1984, the appellant was
informed that he was to retire on January 31, 1984 (AN.) since he attained
the superannuation on January 21, 1984. Thereon, the appellant gave a
reply stating that his date of birth was January 22, 1936 and that therefore
the order of retirement is not correct. Accordingly, he approached the D
High Court by filing Writ Petition No. CWJC No. 353 of 1984 which was
transferred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the said writ petition
holding that the Union of India was not a party. Then he filed O.A No.
306 of 1989. The Tribunal by order dated April 4, 1990 dismissed the
application on the ground of res judicata. Thus this appeal by special leave. E
The contention of the appellant supported by Shri Sanyal, learned
senior counsel, is that the appellant had declared his date of birth as
January 22, 1936 which could be reflective from the periodical medical
inspection reports made by the authorities which noted that his date of
birth. The respondents have deliberately withheld the documents and that,
F
therefore, the appellant is entitled to the declaration that he is not liable
to retire until he attains the superannuation age of 58 years.
The respondents stated before the Tribunal in the first instance that
the record was required to be produced in the High Court and one Mr.
P.C. Ghose, D.S.(G) was entrusted with the record to meet their Advocate G
Mr. AB. Ojha. According to the endorsement made by the Sr. D.P.O. on
November 29, 1988 the S. R. of the appellant together with the file was
taken by Mr. P.C. Ghose to meet Mr. AB. Ojha, their Advocate in
connection with the case laid by the appellant. When that was required
back by letter dated December 23, 1988, the Advocated had stated that "no H
578
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A such paper was with him". Under those circumstances, it was explained that
the file relating to the service record of the appellant was missing. It was
also stated by the Tribunal in the earlier proceedings that the definite stand
taken by the respondents was that the record was manipulated and service
register was removed from record by the appellant in connivance with the
B Officer Superintendent (G). It would thereby appear that the service
record of the appellant with the respondents is not available.
The only question now is Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.