As per case facts, the respondent, upon entering service with a certain date of birth, later sought to correct it to an earlier date. This application was initially rejected by ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
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.
In a significant ruling concerning Service Law, the Supreme Court of India delivered a definitive judgment on the principles governing the Correction of Date of Birth in service records. The case of Collector of Madras and Anr. v. K. Rajamanickam, available on CaseOn, serves as a critical precedent, establishing that attempts to alter one's date of birth at a belated stage, especially near superannuation, cannot be entertained based on unreliable evidence like horoscopes.
The respondent, K. Rajamanickam, entered government service in 1958. At the time of his appointment, his date of birth was officially recorded as January 15, 1935, based on his school records (SSLC register). According to this entry, he was scheduled to retire on January 31, 1993.
However, in April 1986, nearly 28 years into his service, the respondent submitted an application to change his date of birth to January 12, 1936. This request was ultimately rejected by the Collector. Following his superannuation on the scheduled date, he challenged the decision before the Administrative Tribunal.
The Tribunal, in an order dated November 23, 1993, accepted the respondent's contention and directed the government to allow him to continue in service for another year. Under the threat of contempt proceedings, the appellant (Collector of Madras) reinstated the respondent on February 7, 1994, while simultaneously appealing the Tribunal's decision to the Supreme Court. The respondent worked for an additional seven months until the Supreme Court suspended the Tribunal's order on September 19, 1994.
The Supreme Court’s judgment can be best understood through the Issue, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion (IRAC) method.
The central legal questions before the Supreme Court were:
The established legal principle in service jurisprudence is that official records, particularly those furnished by an employee at the time of entry into service, hold significant presumptive value. Any application for correction must be made within a reasonable time frame as stipulated by service rules. Belated claims are generally disallowed to prevent administrative disruption and last-minute attempts to extend service tenure. Evidence like horoscopes is considered weak and unreliable for altering official documents.
The Supreme Court found the Tribunal's decision to be untenable. The judges, K. Ramaswamy and S. C. Sen, JJ., stated it was “beyond comprehension to believe at the belated stage the horoscope evidence or oral statements.”
The Court’s analysis was grounded in two key points:
Understanding the Court's skepticism towards belated evidence is crucial for service law practitioners. For those short on time, CaseOn.in offers 2-minute audio briefs that break down the nuances of such rulings, making complex legal analysis accessible on the go.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Administrative Tribunal. It upheld the respondent’s original date of birth (15.01.1935) and confirmed his date of superannuation as 31.01.1993. The Court firmly established that horoscope evidence could not be used to alter official service records at such a late stage.
Despite ruling against the respondent, the Court exercised its discretion to provide equitable relief. Since the respondent had worked for seven additional months under a valid (at the time) order from the Tribunal, the Court directed that the salary and allowances paid to him for this period should not be recovered. However, it clarified that his retirement benefits must be calculated strictly based on his actual superannuation date of January 31, 1993.
In Collector of Madras v. K. Rajamanickam, the Supreme Court overturned a Tribunal's decision that allowed a last-minute correction of an employee's date of birth. The Court ruled that evidence like horoscopes is unreliable for this purpose, especially when presented after a significant delay. It reaffirmed the validity of the original entry based on the school register. In a gesture of equity, the Court prevented the employer from recovering the salary paid for the extended period of service that resulted from the lower court's erroneous order but directed retirement benefits to be computed from the original date of superannuation.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are advised to consult with a qualified legal professional for advice on their specific situation.
Legal Notes
Add a Note....