Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SHEO NANDAN SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT22/11/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (1) 593 JT 1995 (9) 119
1995 SCALE (6)761
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The 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.
The 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.
The 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.
The 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.
According 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
appllant. When that was required back by letter dated
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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).
It would thereby appear that the service record of the
appellant with the respondents is not available.
The 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.
In 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.
The appeal is therefore, dismissed. No costs.