Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors  INSC 721
(22 November 1995)
K. Ramaswamy, K. Hansaria B.L. (J)
1996 SCC (1) 593 JT 1995 (9) 119 1995 SCALE (6)761
O R D
appellant entered Railway service as Shunting Porter on April 26, 1955. It would appear from the service
record that his date of birth was declared to be January 22, 1926. On January
7, 1984, the appellant
was informed that he was to retire on January 31, 1984 (A.N.), since he attained the
superannuation on January
21, 1984. Thereon, the
appellant gave a reply stating that his date of birth was January 22, 1936 and that therefore the order of
retirement is not correct. Accordingly, he approached the High Court by filing
Writ Petition No. CWJC No.353 of 1984 which was transferred to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal rejected the said writ petition holding that the Union of India
was not a party. Then he filed O.A. No.306 of 1989. The Tribunal by order dated
April 4, 1990 dismissed the application on the
ground of res judicata. Thus this appeal by special leave.
contention of the appellant supported by Shri Sanyal, learned senior counsel,
is that the appellant had declared his date of birth as January 22, 1936 which
could be reflective from the periodical medical inspection reports made by the
authorities which noted that his date of birth.
respondents have deliberately withheld the documents and that, therefore, the
appellant is entitled to the declaration that he is not liable to retire until
he attains the superannuation age of 58 years.
respondents stated before the Tribunal in the first instance that the record
was required to be produced in the High Court and one Mr. P.C. Ghose, D.S.(G)
was entrusted with the record to meet their Advocate, Mr. A.B. Ojha.
to the endorsement made by the Sr.D.P.O. on November 29, 1988 the S.R. of the appellant together with the file was taken
by Mr. P.C. Ghose to meet Mr. A.B. Ojha, their Advocate in connection with the
case laid by the appellant. When that was required back by letter dated December 23, 1988, the Advocated had stated that
"no such paper was with him". Under those circumstances, it was
explained that the file relating to the service record of the appellant was missing.
It was also stated by the Tribunal in the earlier proceedings that the definite
stand taken by the respondents was that the record was manipulated and service
register was removed from record by the appellant in connivance with the
Officer Superintendent (G).
would thereby appear that the service record of the appellant with the
respondents is not available.
only question now is whether the appellant is liable to retire on attaining the
superannuation on January
21, 1984 as contended
by the Department or is entitled to remain in service for 10 more years
treating his date of birth to be January 22, 1936.
view of state of record and paucity of the authentic material on record, we
find it difficult to place implicit reliance on the contention of the
appellant. The Tribunal, therefore, was right in dismissing the petition,
though for different reasons. Under these circumstances, we cannot give any
relief to the appellant.
appeal is therefore, dismissed. No costs.