COLLECTOR OF MADRAS AND ANR.  

v.  

K. RAJAMANICKAM  

JANUARY 13, 1995  

[K. RAMASWAMY ANDS. C. SEN, JJ.]  

Service Law-Correction of Date of Birth-Horoscope evidence or oral  evidence cannot be relied on at belated stage-Entry on the basis of School  Register of Transfer Certificate valid.  

Practice and Procedure-Relief-Employee reinstated in office after  superannuation under order of Tribunal and threat of contempt proceed- ings-Tribunal's order suspended by this Court-lnterim work and payment  for seven months-Amounts paid not to be recovered-Retirement benefit to  be computed from the actual date of superannuation.  

A  

B  

c  

D  

Respondent entered into service in 1958 showing his date of birth as  15.01.35. He made an application for correction of his date of birth on  17.04.86 contending the same to be U.01.36. On the basis of the original  entry in the record, the respondent attained superannuation on 31.01.93. E  By order dated 23.11.93, the tribunal npheld 12.01.36 as the date of birth  of the respondent and allowed him to continue till 31.01.94. Under threat  of contempt proceedings and subject to the present appeal, the appellant  

reinstated the respondent on 07.02.94. The respondent continued in service  till 19.09.94 when this Court suspended the order of the Tribunal. F  

Allowing the appeal, this Court  

HELD I. Horoscope evidence and oral evidence could not be believe4  

at this belated stage. The school register was available when the respon-

dent entered into senice which was recorded on the basis of the entries in G  the SSLC register. (244-E-F]  

2. The respondent continued in office for seven months till this Court  suspended the Tribunal's order. The appellant will not recover any amount  paid to the respondent during this period. However, the retirement benefits H  

243

244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] l S.C.R.  

A should he computed as if he had retired on 31.01.93. (244-H, 245-A]  

B  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 820 of  

1995.  

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.11.93 of the Tamil Nadu  

Administrative Tribunal, Madras in 0.A. No. 447 of 1993.  

A. Mariarputham for Arputham, Aruna & Co. for the Appellants.  

S. Srinivasan for the Respondent.  

The following Order of Court was delivered :  

Leave granted.  

Admittedly, the respondent entered into service in 1958 showing his  

D date of birth as 15.1.1935. He claims to have made an application for  correction of the date of birth on 17.4.1986 which was ultimately rejected  in the proceedings of the Collector dated 25.1.93. Thereafter the respon·  

dent filed the petition on ?7.1.'J:l before the Tribunal. He attained super-

annuation as per the original enlry in the records on 31.1.93. The Tribunal,  

E by its order dated 23.11.93, while holding that his correct date of birth is  12.1.36, directed the appellant to continue the respondent in service for a  

pcricd of one year. That order is now undei challenge. It is beyond  cmnprehcnsion tu believe at the belated stage the horoscope evidence or  

urai slatcnients 'l'hc :,c ilool register V.'as available when he entered into  

F ~ervicc which ''"'iiS rccordeJ on the basis of the entries in the SSLC register.  Volume' wul<l :,c spelt oul of the aulhenticity of the present alleged  

entries in the schcdl register or 1(:.  

The mcJl of the tnatt.cr is that tht.: respondent had attained super-

anuation on 31.1.94 cvt.:.11 on his U\Vn <late .-)f birth a~ cnntenJed fur. As :i  G fact, he was "'pmmnuated on 31.1.93. By »irtuc· of the 01dero of the  

l'rihunal ¥/hen conlc:nlpt procec<lings \Vc1c threatened again~l the officers  

of the appdbnt, subject to their filing the appeal lhcy reinstated the  

respondent into service on 7.2.94 and he remained in office till the order  

was passed by this court on 19.9.94 suspending the order of the Tribunal.  

H Therefore, for seven months the respondent had continued in office. For

COLLECTOR OF MADRAS v. K. RAIAMANICKAM 245  

the period for which he had continued, there shall be a direction not to A  recover any amount paid to him during that period. In other words, his  

retirement benefits should be computed as if he had retired on 31.1.93  only.  

The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.  B  

A.G. Appeal allowed.