Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

41. That apart, I find the appellant / defendant No.1 has not justified as to how and on what basis the date of birth of respondent No.1 / plaintiff has been mentioned as October 02, 1960. In fact, F.R. 56 clearly stipulates the age of retirement of a Government servant is determined with reference to the date of birth declared by the Government servant at the time of appointment on production as far as possible documentary evidence such as high school certificate or extracts from the birth register. It is not the case of the appellant / defendant No.1 that the date of birth certificate submitted by respondent No.1 / plaintiff has not been accepted by the appellant / defendant No.1. The stand of the appellant / defendant No.1 is that the date of birth can be altered within five years of appointment but the said rule does not contemplate, if, an error occurs after five years how the same has to be dealt with. The appellant / defendant No.1 has relied upon the LIC, Group Insurance Policy of 1997 wherein the personal data of the employees including of the respondent No.1 / plaintiff was submitted which includes the date of birth; the seniority list issued in the year 2003 and 2010 respectively, and the salary payslips. All the documents are post 5 years of the appointment of the respondent No.1 / plaintiff and F.R. 56 also states any genuine bonafide mistake occurred in the record of the date of birth can be altered. It is precisely for this reason that the Trial Court held that F.R. 56 has no applicability in the present case. Much reliance has been placed by the appellant / defendant No.1 on the Service Book, where the date of birth of respondent No.1 / plaintiff is depicted as October 02, 1960, but at the same time, the copy of Service Book given to the respondent No.1 / plaintiff under the RTI Act, 2005 as also noted by the Trial Court in paragraph 3.5 of the impugned judgment has now been produced by the appellant / defendant No.1 itself, as Annexure-7 depicts the same as October 02, 1962. It is not known why there is a discrepancy in the date of birth in the same document. The appellant / defendant No.1 has not explained the discrepancy. That apart, I find the pages of the Service Book filed by the appellant / defendant No.1 and the respondent No.1 / plaintiff depicts the date as to when the entry of the particulars have been made in the Service Book. Though the relevant page of the Service Book at the bottom clearly states that entries on this page should be renewed / re-attested at least every five years and the signatures in volumes 11 and 12 should be dated, the date of entries / renewal or re-attested has not been mentioned. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. C. Rama Swamy and Ors., MANU/SC/0492/1997, has held as under: