STATE OF M.P. Vs. SUMER SINGH SIKARWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant -State's second appeal. The plaintiff/respondent had filed a suit before the Civil Judge, Class II, Morena, praying for a declaration that due to clerical mistake his date of birth was wrongly recorded as 11 -12 -1928 in his service book (Ext. D -1) and that his true date of birth was 10 -11 -1930. Rejecting the plaintiff's contention, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiff went in appeal and the lower appellate Court, accepting his case, decreed the suit. The defendant -State of M.P. has now come up in second appeal before this Court.

(2.) THE necessary facts for the appreciation of the controversy between the parties are: The plaintiff had entered into the service of the erstwhile Gwalior State on 1 -8 -1946 as a clerk. At the time of his entry into the service, his date of birth was recorded in his service book (Ext. D -1) as 11 -12 -1928. That entry was signed by him. In due course, his services were absorbed by Government of Madhya Bharat and then by Madhya Pradesh Government. In 1980, by his application, Ext. P -4, the plaintiff requested the State Government that his correct date of birth was 10 -11 -1930 and the entry in his service book regarding his date of birth should, accordingly, be corrected. That application was rejected by the State Government by its order, Ext. P -7, dated 10 -8 -1982. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the suit. The suit was based on 3 certificates. (i) High School Middle Examination, 1946, of the Gwalior State (Ext. P -l); (ii) Clerical Examination, 1947, of the Education Department of the Gwalior State (Ext.P -2): and (iii) High School Examination, 1952, conducted by the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Madhya Bharat (Ext.P -3). All these 3 certificates, the credibility and genuiness of which are beyond doubt, showed the plaintiff's date of birth as 10 -11 -1930. The defendant/State of M.P. has contested the suit on the ground that the date of birth declared by the plaintiff and recorded at his instance in his service book at the time of his entry into the service, was binding on him.

(3.) THE learned Additional Government Advocate Shri Arvind Dudawat submitted that under Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code, Vol. 1. the entry of date of birth in the service book shall be deemed to be absolutely conclusive, except in the case of a clerical error. This Court in M.P. No. 36/1981, decided on 12 -10 -1985, has laid down that then it is shown by credible evidence that the entry in the service book regarding the date of birth has erroneous, it could always be revised. The material placed on record in the form of very credible evidence the -three certificates Exts. P -l, P -2 and P -3 shows that the date of birth as initially recorded in the service book was nothing but a clerical error, as it was based on no material. The learned Additional Government Advocate utterly failed to demonstrate any basis on which the entry in the service book was made. The conclusion of the lower appellate Court does not call for any interference on any ground.