- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Orissa And Others v. Ramanath Patnaik .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeal by special leave arose from an order of a learned Single Judge of the Orissa High Court dated 21-2-1986 in Second Appeal No. 767 of 1981, which dismissed the second appeal in limine.
The respondent joined State service as a Clerk on 21-3-1944. At the time of entry into service, the Matriculation Certificate produced showed his date of birth as 1-1-1921. He retired on superannuation on 31-12-1976. In 1981, after his representation was rejected, he filed a suit seeking a declaration that his correct date of birth was 1-1-1925 (and not 1-1-1921).
The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Additional District Judge, Bhubaneswar decreed the suit. The High Court dismissed the second appeal in limine, leading to the present special leave appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a government servant can succeed in altering the recorded date of birth (based on the matriculation certificate/service record) after retirement, particularly where no attempt was made to correct the service record while in service.
- Whether the High Court committed an error of law in dismissing the second appeal in limine despite the governing legal position on post hoc correction of date of birth in service records.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State Of T.N v. T.V Venugopalan . (1994) 6 SCC 302, (1994) 28 ATC 294 | The service record is opened after entry into service; the date of birth entry in the service record is ordinarily based on school records and is normally countersigned by the government servant. | Treated the issue as settled law (“no longer res integra”) and relied on this principle to reject a later attempt to alter date of birth where the respondent did not seek correction while in service. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court held that the dispute was settled by prior case-law and specifically relied on State of T.N. v. T.V. Venugopalan, which recognized that the date of birth entered in service records is ordinarily derived from the school record (source material) and is normally countersigned by the employee after joining service.
Applying that principle, the Court emphasized that once the date of birth was entered in the service record and the respondent continued in service without attempting correction during service, he could not later succeed by producing evidence subsequently. The Court concluded that such later evidence would be “of no avail.”
On this basis, the Court found that the High Court committed a “manifest error of law” in refusing to entertain the second appeal (dismissed in limine), given the settled legal position governing belated claims for correction of date of birth.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED. The High Court’s judgment was set aside. The judgment and decree of the appellate court (which had decreed the respondent’s suit) were reversed, and the trial court’s dismissal of the suit was confirmed. No costs were awarded.
The direct consequence is that the respondent’s recorded date of birth (as per the matriculation certificate/service record) stands, and the declaration seeking a later date of birth was denied. The opinion applies existing precedent and does not indicate that any new legal principle or broader precedent was created beyond that direct effect.
Order
1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Orissa High Court, made on 21-2-1986 in Second Appeal No. 767 of 1981, dismissing the second appeal in limine.
2. 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 1-1-1921. On attaining the superannuation, he retired from service on 31-12-1976. He filed a suit in the year 1981 on the basis of rejection of his representation for declaration that his correct date of birth is 1-1-1925 and not 1-1-1921. The trial court dismissed the suit, but on appeal, the Additional District Judge, Bhubaneswar decreed the suit. As stated earlier, the second appeal was dismissed by the High Court. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
3. The controversy is no longer res integra. This Court has considered the entire case-law on this point in State of T.N v. T.V Venugopalan (1994) 6 SCC 302, (1994) 28 ATC 294. Therein, this Court has held thus:
“… It is well known that the service record would be opened after the government servant enters the service and normally the entry in the service record would be countersigned by the government servant. The date of birth as entered in the school record … is the source material for making entry in the service record.”
4. When entry was made in the service record and when he was in 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.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the High Court stands set aside. The judgment and decree of the appellate court stands reversed and that of the trial court stands confirmed. No costs.
Alert