SARDAR KHAN Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Panel Lawyer, Shri P. D. Agarwal, has very ably contested unfortunately a very wholesome and salutary claim of the plaintiff which does not evidently stand constitutional cavil. The decisions relied on I would definitely look into but I have no hesitation to say at once that those have no relevance to the lis.

(2.) THE point for consideration is. whether the Court of appeal below was justified in setting aside the decree passed by the trial Court up holding plaintiff's claim that his premature retirement by the State invoking paragraphs 84 and 85 (1) of the M. P. Financial Code, for short "the Code", was illegal. This contention was indeed rightly disposed of by the trial Court on the basis what is to be found on the face of Ex. D -3 itself and what is to be read in sub -para (2) of para 85 of the Code aforesaid which I quote, and indeed both sub -paras: -

(3.) THE short question therefore is, whether para 84 of the Code relied on by Shri Agarwal, in these circumstances, can have at all any relevance or field to operate. To this question there can only be a single answer, a clear and firm 'no'. what para 84 contemplates is that entry of "date of birth" in a Service Book of a Government servant once recorded "would be deemed to be absolutely conclusive, and except in the case of a clerical error no revision of such a declaration shall be allowed to be made at a later period for any purpose whatever." I wonder how in the face of what is to be read in Ex. D -3, namely admission of the State that there was no date of birth in fact recorded in the Service Book, para 84 can at all be invoked. It was State's own case that only the year, and no date, was recorded in plaintiff's Service Book. Indeed, because the date was to be recorded, a query for that purpose was made.