LexSTATE OF ASSAM & ANR. versus DAKSHA PRASAD DEKA & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
687
STATE OF ASSAM & ANR.
v.
DAKSHA PRASAD DEKA & ORS.
October 23, 1970
[J. C .. SHAH, K. S. HE.GDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
Naturtt! Justi~e--:-App/ication for correction of dme of birth in sm'ir:.-
rtcorti-F•Itd wltlrtn three years
of tlate of actual superannuation--If
COitld he tllltrtaintd.
The respondent wa~ appointed A~'>i~tant Sub-lnsp~ctor of Police with
dfect from Janu~try 17. 1929, and on his owo r~prcs~ntation his date of
birth 11as entered in the service record as July l, 1910.
Under F.R. 56(a)
C be 11a, liable to be compulsorily retired on July J, J%5.
In 1963 h.:
3pplicd that the d.ttc of binh in the scrvtce rei:ord may be corrccto:d as
Aug~! I, I 911. The
application was rejected without
giving him 3n
opportunity to suppon his case und he was informed on June 26, 1965, !bat
he ~<ould stand superannuated on Jun.: 30, 1965.
He tiled a ~~orit petitiOn
in the High Coon and the High Court qu.tshed the order d:1tcd June 26.
1965.
D
In appeal to this Court :
HELD : Until the service record of a public scrvlnt is cortcctcd he
C3nnot c1~im th01t he hit~ been deprived of the guarant~~ un~r Art. Jl1(2J
of th~ Con,IJtution by bein~; compulsorily retired on ~unrn!ng lh!! 3gt! of
·~pcr•nnu:.tion on the h;"is of th~ scr..,ice record. A, pubhc ~ant roa)'
dtlputc the correctness of the date of birth as entered 10 th.: scrv•c~ rccor~
E loll IIUI)' :~pply for it~ correction, bul in view of S.K. II t:Jotc, whtch go'; '
cmr.S the employment o( the
r~-spondcnl, un
Jpphca~to"' for such
tOrrt(llon could not he cntcrtuineJ if it was mnJe w•th•n tbree Y~
~fore the date of ';,ctu<~l supcrannu:nion'. The. words 'llctual ~pcr;t~':~;
bon' lll(an the date of superannuation according to the ~ervtee
Th:
lDd not according to the d01IC of b1rth claimed by the pubhe .sc~~n~. ~
~~pon.Jcna rcpr,~cnh:d that he ha1l utt>•incd the 31:~ of maJon ~ ,J tb;lt
F
•lc on 10hich h~: entered scrvic.:. It "a~ not open 10 h~~ c3o;mincd to
~r I~ uppropriate '>Crvicc rut.: he could not have
1
krvtcc. !6llll G·H, 61!9 A·ll. F·Gl
, .
SJ
•
• D • I 1967J 2 S.C.R.
6-~
I'
Cc'<"' .ulr of Oril.Jn v. Dr. (/Ifill) Owupam
n
r,..lntd,
C
. .1 A ne:al No 2265 of
1966 lVtL At•PELLATE } URISOtCTlON: CIVI
p,..-
•
C
~
·
•
nt and order datx:d
l
hn ppcal by special leave from the JUdg!Xl~ High court io l
c· ~,ary 10, 1966 of the Assam and Nagli:IO
tvt Rule No. 266 of 1965.
Narmlt L(l/, fur the uppclhtnls.
)1
R. Gop(/hlkrisltmut, for rc~pont.h:nt No. I.
t
The J
. . dclivc:C\!d by
1
1
udgmcnt of the Court w.as
.
• lied 'tbc res·
Shah
k
berctoafrer ~::t
r
with
Ponde , • J. Daksha Prasad. De.: ·o-b·lospcctor of Po 1ce
nt -w:~s nppointcd As~1~1an t Su
. --· .
.
I '
-688
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] 2 'S.C.R.
·effect from January 17, 1929. On a representation mad··
~,y
the respopdent the date of his birth was entered in the serv;ce
reccrd as July 1, 1910.
Under F.R.
56(a) the respondent
was liable to be compulsorily retired on July 1, 1965. In 1956
the respondent applied that the date of birth entered in his service
record be shown as August 1, 1911.
That application was
rejected.
The respondent again applied in 1963 for correction
of his date of birth.
The application was rejected and by order
dated Ju,ne 26, 1965, the respondent was informed that he will
stand superannuated
on June 30,
1965. His representation
made to the Government of Assam against that order was un-
successful.
The respondent then applied to the High Court of Assam
praying for a, writ in the nature of mandamus requir~ng the State
. of Assam to forbear {rom giving effect to the order dated June
26, 1965.
The High Court quashed the order dated June 26,
1965, and directed the State of Assam to give an opportunity
to the respondent to show cause against the order. directing com-
pulsory retirement and 'ln opportunity to prove his true date
of birth.
Agai1nst that order, this appeal is preferred with spe-
cial leave.
In the opinion of the High Court if the true date of birth of
the respondent was August 1, 1911, the order compulsorily retir-
ing the respondent on June 30, 1965, without giving him an
opportunity to prove his true age, infringed the guarantee of
Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution. . In our judgment, the High
Court was wrong in holding that there was any in-fringement of
Art. 311 ( 2) of the Constitution.
In the service record of the respondent his date of birth was
recorded as JulExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.