STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. v.
SHRI RAMANATH PATNAIK 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 subsequently for declaration of con·ect date of birih-Dis111issal of suit by Tlial Cowt-Suit decreed by Fiw Appellate Cowt-Second appeal prefe1red by State dismissed by High Cowt-Appea/ before Supreme Cowt-Held no attempt 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 refusing to ente1tai11 the second appeal. 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 attaining the superannuation, he retired from service on 31.12.1976. He
STATEv. RAMANATH PATNAIK filed a suit in the year 1981. on the basis of the rejection of his representation 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 : ''It is well known thafthe service record would be opened after the government servant enters the service record would be countersigned 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 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 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.