State Bank of India vs Shri Sat Pal Arora and Others

Ranjit Singh, J.—The State Bank of India through its Chairman has filed this appeal against the judgment passed by Addl.District Judge, Amritsar. Sat Pal Arora was working as Head Cashier. State Bank of India had filed this suit to seek change in his date of birth as recorded in the Bank record. The facts, as pleaded, would show that the respondent-plaintiff was recruited as a Money-testor with the Imperial Bank of India in 1944. This Bank latter became State Bank of India. Subsequently, the respondent-plaintiff was promoted as Deputy Head Cashier. As per Clause 11.1 of the Bipartite Settlement between the members of the staff and the Bank, the respondent-plaintiff could continue in service till the completion of age of 60 years and the period of two years beyond 58 years was not to count towards the benefits of pension. The grievance raised by the respondent-plaintiff in the suit was that his date of birth was wrongly recorded and he was retired on attaining the age of 60 years on 31.10.1984. He accordingly filed a civil suit seeking declaration that the order retiring him on attaining the age of 60 years was wrong and illegal in terms of Rule 11.1 of the Bipartite Settlement.

This suit was dismissed against which he filed the first appeal. The first Appellate Court had allowed the appeal and had directed the Bank that the appellant shall be entitled to a decree of full pay and allowances for a period of two years, i.e., from 1.11.1984 to 31 .10.1986. The respondent-plaintiff was also held entitled to his costs.

The perusal of the pleadings would show that respondent-plaintiff claimed that his date of birth was 9/10th October, 1926, though in the Bank record it was mentioned as 1.11.1924. As per the respondent-plaintiff, he was physically fit and efficiently discharging his duties. He, as such, pleaded that he was entitled to continue till completion of 60 years of age as per his correct date of birth, which was 9/10th October, 1926. He accordingly challenged the order dated 29.10.1924 which was stated to be against the Bipartite Settlement.

The question, thus, arose whether the date of birth of the respondent-plaintiff was 9.10.1926 or 1.11.1924. The record would also show that this is not a case where the respondent-plaintiff had awakened late just prior to his superannuation. It was as far as back on 12.5.1959 that the respondent-plaintiff had initiated a communication that his date of birth according to the Bank record was discrepant. As per the service book, the date of birth was found as 12.6.1923 and in the Central Accounts Office as 1.11.1924. The respondent-plaintiff accordingly brought to the notice of the Bank that his date of birth was 9.10.1926.

As change of date of birth was sought. The Bank called upon the respondent-plaintiff to submit acceptable documentary evidence. In response, the respondent-plaintiff pointed out that he has already done so through his letter dated 25.5.1959. Respondent-plaintiff also filed an affidavit of his correct date of birth vide letter dated 29.1.1981. Despite this, the Bank had decided on 18.12.1981 that the date of birth of the respondent-plaintiff be treated as 1.11.1924. This accordingly had led to filing of the suit.

On appreciation of evidence, the first Appellate Court considered the entire issue. It was found that the respondent-plaintiff was not even a matriculate and he had joined the service of the Bank when he was very young of 18 years. It was observed by the Court that one could concede that the respondent-plaintiff had made bonafide mistake in mentioning his date of birth and, thus, took action to get it corrected not at the fag-end of his career, but much in advance.

As already noticed, the respondent-plaintiff had initiated a communication in this regard in the year 1959. It was accordingly noticed that it appears to be a case of bonafide mistake in mentioning the date of birth to be 1.11.1924. Though this declaration had been made by the respondent-plaintiff, but it was with a bonafide belief that his date of birth was so. Subsequently, the respondent-plaintiff was able to show his birth certificate that he was born on 9.10.1926. The enquiry was held in this regard for effecting the change in the date of birth of the respondent-plaintiff where he provided school leaving certificate as a proof. His version was not accepted without much justification. It is noticed by the first Appellate Court that the enquiry was held, but finding was given without giving any cogent reasons.

The first Appellate Court found that respondent-plaintiff had made out a case for amending his date of birth. By the time the case was decided, respondent-plaintiff had already retired and had also crossed 60 years age even as per the amended date of birth. Accordingly, the first Appellate Court, while allowing the appeal, directed that the respondent-plaintiff be deemed to have retired as per the correct date of birth taking it to be 9.10.1926, which would mean that he would retire w.e.f. 31.10.1926. Accordingly, the respondent-plaintiff was held entitled to full pay and allowances for the period from 1.11.1984 to 31.10.1986. His appeal was accordingly allowed with costs.

Except for submitting that the change of date of birth was sought at the fag-end of his career, no meaningful submissions are made before me to impugn the judgment under appeal. As already noticed, the request for change of date of birth was made at very early stage of his service by respondent-plaintiff. The submission that it made at fag-end of service is not correct. There is no other substantial question of law arising in this case.

The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed.