AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Supreme Court Judgments


Latest Supreme Court of India Judgments 2018

Subscribe

RSS Feed img






Collector of Madras & Anr Vs. K. Rajamanickam [1995] INSC 50 (13 January 1995)

Ramaswamy, K. Ramaswamy, K. Sen, S.C. (J)

CITATION: 1995 SCC (2) 98 1995 SCALE (1)237

ACT:

HEAD NOTE:

Order

1. Leave granted.

2. Admittedly, the respondent entered into service in 1958 showing his 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 25-1-1993. Thereafter the respondent filed the petition on 27-1-1993 before the Tribunal. He attained superannuation as per the original entry in the records on 31-1-1993. The Tribunal, by its order dated 23- 11-1993, while holding that his correct date of birth is 12- 1-1936, directed the appellant to continue the respondent in service for a period of one year. That order is now under challenge. It is beyond comprehension to believe at the belated stage the horoscope evidence or oral statements.

The school register was available when he entered into service which was recorded on the basis of the entries in the SSLC register.

+From the Judgment and Order dated 23-11-1993 of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras in O.A. No. 447 of 1993 99 Volumes could be spelt out of the authenticity of the present alleged entries in the school register or TC.

3. The meat of the matter is that the respondent had attained superannuation on 31-1-1994 even on his own date of birth as contended for. As a fact, he was superannuated on 31-1-1993. By virtue of the orders of the Tribunal when contempt proceedings were threatened against the officers of the appellant, subject to their filing the appeal they reinstated the respondent into service on 7-2-1994 and he remained in office till the order was passed by this Court on 19-9-1994 suspending the order of the Tribunal.

Therefore, for seven months the respondent had continued in office. For the period for which he had continued, there shall be a direction not to recover any amount paid to him during that period. In other words, his retiral benefits should be computed as if he had retired on 31-1-1993 only.

4. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

 Back


 



Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered by nubia  |  driven by neosys