1999 JTR(SC) 1229
2000 Supp3 LLJ 857 ; 2000 10 SCC 284 ; 2000 SCC(L&S) 832 ; 2000 KHC 4271
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : V.N.Khare
Hari Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Case No. : 6067 of 1999
Date of Decision : 10/15/99
The date of birth recorded in a government employee's service book cannot be unilaterally altered by the employer for the purpose of retirement without providing the employee prior notice and an opportunity to contest the change.
(A) Service Law - Date of Birth - Alteration of date of birth recorded in service book - Retirement - Date of birth entered in the service book is the authoritative record - Government cannot unilaterally alter the date of birth to retire an employee early without providing prior notice to the employee to indicate that the recorded date is incorrect - In the absence of such notice, an order altering the date of birth and retiring the employee cannot be sustained. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
An employee's date of birth was recorded in the service book as 1-12-1943, which would have led to superannuation on 30-11-2001. The competent authority passed an order retiring the employee treating the date of birth as 17-7-1936, on the grounds that the employee could not have undergone training in 1961 if born in 1943, as the rules required the completion of 19 years of age.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order of the Government cannot be sustained as the employee was never put on notice to indicate that the date of birth as entered in the service book was incorrect, despite the Government having the opportunity to do so.
Issues: Whether the government can unilaterally alter the date of birth recorded in a service book to effect retirement without giving notice to the employee.
Ratio Decidendi: Since no notice was given to the employee for accepting a date of birth other than the one entered in the service book, the order of retirement based on the altered date of birth is unsustainable.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Facts of the case:
An employee's date of birth was recorded in the service book as 1-12-1943, which would have led to superannuation on 30-11-2001. The competent authority passed an order retiring the employee treating the date of birth as 17-7-1936, on the grounds that the employee could not have undergone training in 1961 if born in 1943, as the rules required the completion of 19 years of age.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order of the Government cannot be sustained as the employee was never put on notice to indicate that the date of birth as entered in the service book was incorrect, despite the Government having the opportunity to do so.
Issues: Whether the government can unilaterally alter the date of birth recorded in a service book to effect retirement without giving notice to the employee.
Ratio Decidendi: Since no notice was given to the employee for accepting a date of birth other than the one entered in the service book, the order of retirement based on the altered date of birth is unsustainable.
Result: Appeal allowed.
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) THE appellant entered government service and in the service-book his date of birth is recorded as 1-12-1943. On that basis he would have superannuated on 30-11-2001. The competent authority however has passed an order retiring the appellant from service treating his date of birth to be 17- 7-1936. This order is on the basis that when the appellant entered for training in 1961, his date of birth being 1943 he could not have got that training, inasmuch as he had not completed 19 years of age, as required under the rules. The learned counsel for the appellant however controverts this position, inasmuch as, according to him, it is only for a substantive appointment and not for training. We are not however delving into an inquiry on this aspect inasmuch as, in our opinion, the impugned order of the Government cannot be sustained as concededly the Government never put the employee on notice to indicate that the date of birth as entered in the service-book is incorrect though it could have done so. Since no notice has been given to the employee concerned for accepting a date of birth other than the one entered in the service-book, the impugned order of retirement cannot be sustained. We set aside the impugned order altering the date of birth of the appellant. The appellant must be deemed to be continuing in service until duly superannuated in accordance with law.
(3) THIS appeal is accordingly allowed.