A
B
STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.
v.
SHRI RAMANA TH PA TNAIK
APRIL 2, 1997
[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, J.J.]
Se1vice Law-Employee-Date of bi1th-Con-ection of-Date of bilth
recorded on the basis of school ceitificate-Superannuation-Suit filed sub-
sequently for declaration of con·ect date of birih-Dis111issal of suit by Tlial
C Cowt-Suit decreed by Fiw Appellate Cowt-Second appeal prefe1red by
State dismissed by High Cowt-Appea/ before Supreme Cowt-Held no at-
tempt was made by e111p/oyee to have the record cmrected while he was in
service-Any amoulll of evidence produced subsequently would be of no
avai~The High Cowt, therefore, has co111mitted manifest en-or of law in
D refusing to ente1tai11 the second appeal.
E
F
State of Tamil Nadu v. T. V Vcnugopalan, (1994] 6 SCC 302, referred
to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2673 of
1986.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.2.86 of the Orissa High
Court in S.A. No. 295 of 1985.
P.N. Misra for the Appellants.
N.R. Choudhary for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
This appeal by special leave arises from the Judgment of the learned
G single Judge of the Orissa High Court, made on February 21, 1986 in
Second Appeal No. 767/81, dismissing the second appeal in li111i11e.
Admittedly, the respondent joined the State service as a Clerk on
21.3.1944. According to the Matriculation Certificate produced at the time
of the entry into the service, 'his date of birth is January 1, 1921. On
H attaining the superannuation, he retired from service on 31.12.1976. He
528
STATEv. RAMANATH PATNAIK
529
filed a suit in the year 1981. on the basis of the rejection of his repre-
A
sentation for declaration that his correct date of birth is January l, 1925
and not January l, 1921. The trial Court dismissed the suit, but on appeal,
the Additional District Judge, Bhubaneshwar decreed the suit. As stated
earlier, the second appeal was dismissed by the High Court. Thus, this
appeal by special leave.
The controversy is no longer res integra. This Court has considered
the entire case law on this point in State of Tamil Nadu v. T. V.
Venugo}Jllftm._ ! 1994] 6 SCC 302. Therein, this Court, has held thus :
B
''It is well known thafthe service record would be opened after the C
government servant enters the service record would be counter-
signed by the government servant. The date of birth as entered in
the school record is the source of material for making entry in the
service record."
When entry was made in the service record and when he was in D
service, he did not make any attempt to have the service record corrected.
Therefore, any amount of evidence produced subsequently would be of no
avail. The High Court, therefore, has committed manifest error of law in
refusing to entertain the second appeal.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the High Court E
stands set aside. The judgment and decree of the appellate Court stands
reversed and that of the trial Court stands confirmed. No Costs.
T.N.A.
Appeal allowed.
Lex