Collector of Madras and Anr. v. K. Rajamanickam

Judgment

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 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 respondent filed the petition on 27.1.93 before the Tribunal. He attained superannuation as per the original entry in the records on 31.1.93. The Tribunal, 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 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 recordeJ on the basis of the entries in the SSLC register. Volumes could be spelt out of the authenticity of the present alleged entries in the school register or TC. The meat of the matter is that the respondent had attained superanuation on 31.1.94 even on his own date of birth as contended for. As a fact, he was superannuated on 31.1.93. 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 7.2.94 and he remained in office till the order was passed by this court on 19.9.94 suspending the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, for seven months the respondent had continued in office. For COLLECTOR OF MADRAS v. K. RAJAMANICKAM 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. A.G. Appeal allowed.