SC: In case of contradiction between information provided under service book and statutory form, former prevails

Apr21,2022 #SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Law Insider

Sakunjay Vyas

Published on: April 21, 2022 at 11:06 IST

The Two Judge Bench of Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Aniruddha Bose of the Supreme Court overturned the impugned judgment passed by  the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, in which the High Court had dismissed the appeal pleaded by the appellant that at the time of his appointment, the office of the respondent company entered in all their records his date of birth as 21st September 1949.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that in case of contradiction between the information provided under service book and a statutory form, the former prevails.

The Two Judge Bench of Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Aniruddha Bose was hearing an appeal against the impugned judgment passed by the Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, in which the High Court had dismissed the appeal of the here-in appellant by rejecting his plea that the employer has wrongfully relied upon the incorrect birth date of the appellant, which was relevant for computation of his benefits accruing from a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (“VRS”).

The respondent submitted the following contentions:

  • That at the entry point, he had given his age to be 26 years, and that was the age reflected in the Form “B”.
  • That the medical practitioner during a health check-up had also assessed his age to be about 25 years, which would take his year of birth closer to 1945.

The Apex Court stated that the respondents had only corrected an error and such recordal in service book cannot be treated to be acceptance of the appellant’s date of birth as 21st September 1949.

That the authorities proceeded in this matter in a rather mechanical manner and embarked on a unilateral exercise of correcting the age entry in the service book on their perception that an error was being corrected.

This exercise was conducted without giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellant and at the fag end of his service tenure.

The Apex Court stated that the respondent, for the confirmation of the age, has relied on a statutary form which does hold a certain level of credibility but cannot be considered as a conclusive proof for the same and that in case of any confusion help of a medical board is also advisable.

 Any doubt on a workman’s age at the time of joining service also could be verified by a medical board We accept that an entry in the Form “B” possesses high probative value, but they are not conclusive proof of what is contained therein.. the Court said.

That the Apex Court stated that the medical examination conducted in the present case which became the basis of the decision of the Division Bench appears to be a regular checkup and not a specific test of appellant’s age.

“…medical report as the same was not a report of a medical board set up specifically for age determination. It appears to have been a general observation in course of health check­up. There does not appear to have had been any other medical board constituted for that purpose.” the Court said.

The Apex Court further stated that the even though the birth date accepted by the employer appears on a statutory form but since the birth date accepted and pleaded is present on the service book and service books are the source for the formation of pay-slips. Therefore the record on the service books will decide the amount and benefits to be decided in case of Voluntary Retirement.

“Though in the Form “B”, the appellant’s age in 1971 was given as 26 years (the date of birth shown as 21st September 1945), in the subsequent documents the date appearing in service book had been reflected and it was the date reflected in the service book which formed the basis of the pay­slips as also the estimate statement of the appellant’s voluntary retirement benefits.” the Court said.

As a result, the Apex Court overturned the impugned judgment passed by the Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench by stating that the appeal is allowed and the respondents are directed to extend the benefits of VRS to the appellant treating his date of birth as 21st September 1949.

Related Post