9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to legality of judgment on date of birth discrepancy. Analysis: The case involves a dispute over the date of birth of an employee, where the State claimed the date to be 1.9.1930, but the employee asserted it to be 1.9.1939. The High Court allowed the writ petition, accepting the employee's claim due to the State's failure to produce service records. The appellant argued that the service book was indeed filed along with an affidavit, showing the date of birth as 1.9.1930, and various documents supported this date consistently. The appellant contended that the respondent's claim was belated and unsustainable. The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of maintaining accurate service records, especially regarding dates of birth, to avoid disputes near retirement. Various precedents were cited to emphasize the need for timely correction of such records and the consequences of delayed claims. The Court found the High Court's decision erroneous, ruling in favor of the State's recorded date of birth, 1.9.1930. The employee was entitled to retiral benefits up to the actual date of superannuation, 30.9.1990, but not for the period beyond that until the erroneous date claimed by the employee, 31.1.1991. The appeal was allowed with no costs. This judgment underscores the significance of accurate service records, particularly regarding dates of birth, in public service. It emphasizes the need for timely correction of any errors to prevent disputes, especially near retirement. The Court highlighted the adverse impact of delayed claims on the promotion prospects of other employees and the importance of conclusive evidence to support any correction of records. The ruling reaffirmed the principle that corrections to service records, including dates of birth, should be made within a reasonable time and based on irrefutable proof. The judgment also clarified the implications of erroneous date claims on retiral benefits, ensuring fairness in such cases.
|
