RAHAS DAS Vs. CHAIRMAN, PARADIP PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 3.7.2001 and 13.7.2001, respectively, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jagatsinghpur in T.A. Case No.9 of 1998 reversing the judgment and decree dated 20.1.1998 and 7.2.1998, respectively, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jagatsinghpur in T.S. No.167 of 1997, the plaintiff -appellant has filed this Second Appeal. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the suit are respondent Nos.1 and 2, respectively, in this appeal.

(2.) THE plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration that his date of birth is 23.10.1947 and that the date '3.8.1939' which finds entry in his Service Book as his date of birth is incorrect. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff was initially appointed as a Khalasi (Labourer) under Paradip Port Trust in the year 1963 and at the time of filing of the suit he was working as a M.V. Driver. With regard to opening of the plaintiff's Service Book and the disputed entry therein, plaintiff's case is that in the year 1966 when his Service Book was opened he had produced one horoscope evidencing his date of birth. At that time his signatures were obtained on some blank papers and the horoscope was returned to him. He had no opportunity to know as to what were the entries made in his Service Book maintained by the Defendants in course of his service period. In December 1996 he came to know for the first time that the entry in respect of his date of birth was wrong. Since he was going to be superannuated very shortly he made a representation to the Defendants on 31.12.1996 for necessary correction of his date of birth in his Service Book. On 18.2.1997 the Defendants replied to the effect that on verification made in the year 1987 his date of birth was settled as '3.8.1939'. The authorities refused to correct his date of birth vide letter dated 11.4.1997. Hence the suit.

(3.) THE Defendants in their written statement have contended that the plaintiff having failed to apply for correction of date of birth within five years of opening of the Service Book, he is estopped from making such a move at the fag end of his service career. In respect of the disputed entry in the Service Book, the Defendants admit that on the basis of plaintiff's statement, his age was recorded as 24 years. The plaintiff put his signature on the Service Book having understood the entries made therein. After opening of the Service Book he had got several opportunities to verify the entries made therein from time to time. Having served for a long period and at the fag end of his career the plaintiff approached the authorities for correction of his date of birth basing on fabricated documents. According to the Defendants, if the plaintiff's correct date of birth is 3.8.1939 then he was below 18 years of age as on the date of his joining, i.e., 3.8.1963 and on that event he could not have been appointed on the ground of under age.