LexTHE NATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY versus SHRI M.A. WAHAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
THE NATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY
·•
v.
SHRI M.A. WAHAB
t
APRIL 29, 1994
B
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND M.K. MUKHERJEE[
Seroice Laiv!Civil Se1vices :
Fundamental Rule 56 (m) Note 5 and Administrative Refonns Notifica·
c tion dated November 30, 1979--Correction of date of birth in service
record-Plea barred by tim~Tribunal holding Note applicable only to those
retiring after December 15, 1979-Held, Tribunal's finding unsustainable.
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, S.19--Correction of date of birth
D
in service record-Tribunal allowing plea for correcting date of birth from
January 1, 1934 to March 1, 1939-Held, Tribunal's findings not borne out
by the records.
The service book prepared at the time of the Respondent joining the
appellant's services showed his date of birth as January I, 1934. After the
E respondent passed the matriculation examination an entry regarding this
qualification was made in his service book. Not heeding to the respondent's
request on June 4, 1990 to correct his date of birth as March I, 1939 as
shown in the matriculation certificate, the appellant asked him to retire
on December 31, 1991.
F
The respondent's application was allowed by the Central Ad·
ministrative Tribunal which held that the respondent gave his date of birth
as January 1,1934 under compelling circumstances and that Note 5 of
Fundamental Rule 56(m) as substituted by an Administrative Reforms
Notification dated November 30, 1979 requiring all claims for correction
,. •
G of date birth by government servants to be made within live years of entry
into service applied only to those· employed after December 15, 1979.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD: I. The amended Note 5 of Fundamental Rule 56 (m) applies
,
H also to government servants already in service before December 15, 1979;
800
""
1'ATIONALAIRPORT AUTHORITY, .. M.A. WAHAB IYl.K. ~!LKHERJEE . .l.J 801
"'
they may seek correction of date of birth not later than five year after the A
amendment. The Tribunal's finding cannot be sustained. [807-D, 806-H)
Union of India v. Hamam Singh, [1993) 2 SCC 162, applied
1.2. It cannot be said that the respondent had given his date of birth
as January 1, 1934 under compelling circumstances. Indeed, the respon-
B
dent did not raise such plea even in the application. [806-H)
1.3. In the instant case, none of the findings of the Tribunal is borne
out by the records, and hence cannot be sustained. [806-H]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3935-36 c
of 1994.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.5.92 & 8.9.92 of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench in 0.A. No. 243/91 & R.A. No.
17 of 1992.
,
D
Ms. Rachna Joshi Issar for the Appellant.
P.K. Goswami, Rajeev Mehta and Kailash Vasdev for the Respon-
dent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
M.K. MUKERJEE, J. Special leave granted.
In these appeals the appellant assails 1he decision of the Cenlral
Administrative Tribunal, ('Tribunal' for short) Gauhati Bench, whereby the
respondent's application for alternation of his date of birth from January
F
1, 1934, as appearing in his service record 1 to March 1, 1939 has been
allowed.
f:
The respondent joined the :-.crvicc of the cippellant a:-. a peon on
October 15, 1957. Al the lime of his entry into the service his service book G
1
was prepared with his date of hirlh recorded as January 1, 1934 and
'
educational qualification as read uplo Class IX. Later on in 1962 the
respondent passed the matriculation examination of the Gauhati University
•
and on the basis of a certificate dated August 27, 1962 issued by H.M .
...
Thanga H.E. School Gauhati an entry regarding this qualification was
made in his service hook. Consequent upon his success in the matriculation H
A
B
c
802
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1994] 3 S.C.R.
examination the respondent got the job of a clerk and in due course he
was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant in the office of the Senior
Aerodrome Officer, Civil Aerodrome, Imphal. While so employed he sent
an application to the appellant on June 4, 1990 along with a photostat copy
of hi~ n1atriculation certificate vvith a request to remove the \vrong entry of
his date of birth as appearing in the :;ervice book and correct it as f\.1arch
J, 1939, as appearing in the certificate. The appellant did not heed to his
request and, on the contrary, relying upon the dale of birth as appearing
in the service hook asked him to retiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.