The school register entry prevails over a transfer certificate in determining an employee’s date of birth.

The petitioner, appointed as a Group-D Daftari on compassionate grounds in 1993, had a date of birth of 10 January 1970 recorded in his service book on the basis of a school transfer certificate.

Following an inquiry, the authorities found that the school register recorded his date of birth as 22 January 1963, issued an order treating him as retired with effect from 31 January 2023, and sought to recover salary paid for service thereafter.

The petitioner challenged the retirement order and sought a stay of its operation.

The State maintained that the school register, rather than the transfer certificate, established the correct date of birth.

1. Whether the petitioner’s date of birth should be determined by the date recorded in the transfer certificate or by the date recorded in the school register.

2. Whether the State could recover salary paid for the period the petitioner continued working after the retirement date determined from the school-register entry.

The Court stated that, in this case, the date of birth recorded in the school register should prevail over the date stated in the transfer certificate.

It also directed that salary paid for the petitioner’s excess service should not be recovered, taking account of the circumstances that the certificate had been issued while he was a minor, the authorities had not verified it during his service, and he had performed his duties without allegation against him.

The judgment cited no statute or precedent.

The Court accepted the State’s finding that the school register recorded the petitioner’s date of birth as 22 January 1963, whereas the transfer certificate stated 10 January 1970; it therefore held that the register entry governed and that the petitioner’s retirement date was correctly fixed as 31 January 2023.

However, because the certificate had been issued when the petitioner was a minor, had not been verified by the authorities during his service, and he had continued working satisfactorily, the Court considered recovery of salary for the excess service unwarranted.

It upheld the determination that the petitioner’s date of birth was 22 January 1963 and directed that his pension be calculated on the basis of the amount fixed at the retirement date determined by that date of birth.

The State was directed not to recover salary paid for the period of excess service.