RE Vs. FR JOSEPH VALAMANGALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment and decree in o. S. 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 10-3-1095. For the preparation of his service book he gave his date of birth as 1-1-1896 corresponding to 21-8-1071 on the basis of his certificate of baptism. His age, it would appear, had been given as 10 years at the time of his admission on 19-7-1905 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 19-7-1895, apparently calculating it as just 10 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 17-7- 1895, it is not clear on what basis. Any how there had crept in a discrepancy between the official and academic ages of the plaintiff. On 8-2-1950 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 17-7-1895 as per the Maharaja's college records. THE plaintiff replied on 13-2-1950 to say that there was no mistake calling for rectification. While so, Government issued Press Note dated 20-2-1950 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, (i) Gazetted Officers with over 25 years' service will be compulsorily retired. (ii) Gazetted Officers with less than 25 years' service and non-gazetted officers will be required to accept the dates of birth in the college Admission Register as the correct age. " THE plaintiff's case obviously fell within the scope of the Press Note. So Government sanctioned his retirement as on 17-7-1950 when he would have attained age of superannuation according to the academic age, with all eligible leave preparatory thereto. Plaintiff accordingly gave up charge of his office on 20-3-1950 and retired on 17-7-1950. This suit he filed thereafter on 21-3-1951 for declaration that his date of birth was 1-4-1896 and for recovery of the pay and emoluments of his office as Deputy Inspector General of police from 21-3-1950 to 1- 4-1951 amounting to Rs. 4155-12-6 and of a larger monthly pension of Rs. 168-10 As. instead of Rs. 150-5 As. as fixed. He also claimed recovery of solatium and damages for mental agony and suffering and loss of reputation which he estimated at Rs. 16000. THE plaint averred that the initial acceptance by Government of 1-4-1896, as the plaintiff's date of birth when first he entered service and along with it the acting on basis thereof for a continuous period of 31 years estopped the Government from reopening the subject, in any event without proper enquiry.

(3.) NOW, the main plank in the arguments addressed on behalf of the plaintiff in the court below was the peremptory nature of the wording of Art. 352 (F) (c) of the Travancore Service Regulations as follows: "the age of an officer whether gazetted or non-gazetted can be recorded only on receipt of satisfactory proof. Once the date of birth has been accepted and recorded in the service register, it should form conclusive evidence on the same in respect of all future Government transactions. " The point was accordingly sought to be made that the press Note issued by Government on later date 20-2-1950 must, to the extent it takes more powers for Government, be unauthorised and void. It was this point however which came up for specific consideration and was over-ruled in zainnudin v. State, I. L. R. 1953 T-C 954 as noted by the court below. The learned judges there held : "such a provision in the service Regulations cannot in our opinion bind the discretion of the State, and a decision on the lines embodied in the Press Note is well within its competence. " Indeed this decision has been accepted as settling the law in the later Full Bench case in Mohammed v. State of Kerala, 1957 K. L. T. 608. This later decision has really gone further so as to recognise the power of Government to accept by subsequent order the academic age even though under former order an entry in the birth register had been preferred thereto. In this position, Mr. K. P. Abraham, learned counsel for the plaintiff did not want to canvass before us the validity of the Government's preference of the academic age to the official age so far as his client was concerned. But he said it was the entry in the Register of the last of the colleges that should govern, if at all. That is to say in the case of the plaintiff, the Law College, Trivandrum, where last he had studied and he referred to the entry as to date of birth, 1-4-1896 in plaintiff's application for admission to the B. L. Class in that college and filed as fresh document before this court.