CHANDI Vs. STATE OF TRAVANCORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 88 of 1951 on the file of the District Court of Trivandrum. The appellant is the plaintiff.

(2.) THE plaintiff Mr. P. C. Chandy joined service under the former Government of Travancore, as a clerk in the Account Office on 10 March 1095. For the preparation of his service book he gave his date of birth as 1 April 1896 corresponding to 21 August 1971 on thee basis of this certificate of baptism. His age, it would appear, had been given as ten years at the time of his admission on 19 July 1905 in the Seminary E. H. S. School, Thiruvella. On his admission in the C. M. S. College, Kottayam, his date of birth had been taken to be 19 July 1895, apparently calculating it as just ten years previous to his admission in the seminary school. His date of birth in the Maharaja's College, Trivandrum, where he later joined was however put down as 17 July 1895, it is not clear on what basis. Anyhow there had crept in a discrepancy between the official and academic ages of the plaintiff. On 8 February 1950 while the plaintiff was the Deputy, Inspector-General of Police under the defendant, Travancore-Cochin State, his official superior the Inspector-General of Police asked him to rectify his date of birth as 17 July 1895 as per the Maharaja's College records. The plaintiff replied on 13 February 1950 to say that there was no mistake calling for rectification. While so, Government issued press note dated 20 February 1950 as follows: The Government have decided that action will be taken on the following lines in the case of officers whose official or academic ages differ:

(3.) GOVERNMENT contested the suit on the footing that they had given sufficient opportunity to the plaintiff to explain the discrepancy in the date of birth as entered in the service book and that disclosed by the college records. Plaintiff failed to correct his age and as Government were satisfied about the correctness of the date of birth as entered in the college records they adopted the same for purpose of the plaintiff's retirement. Government submitted that the retirement of plaintiff was in the circumstances legal and competent and plaintiff had no cause of action to maintain the suit. They denied the plaintiff's right to all or any of the reliefs claimed.