<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1996 (4) TMI 499 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184636</link>
    <description>Under the substituted Rule 16A governing All India Services personnel, the date of birth recorded in the official service book remained final for officers who had entered service earlier, and the rule did not permit reopening that entry merely because a representation was made later. The only recognised exception was a bona fide clerical mistake. Where the officer had himself declared the same date of birth at entry into service, later reliance on horoscope material or a birth extract did not prove clerical error, and estoppel could bar a contrary claim. The service-book entry was therefore left unaltered and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2016 18:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=435008" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (4) TMI 499 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184636</link>
      <description>Under the substituted Rule 16A governing All India Services personnel, the date of birth recorded in the official service book remained final for officers who had entered service earlier, and the rule did not permit reopening that entry merely because a representation was made later. The only recognised exception was a bona fide clerical mistake. Where the officer had himself declared the same date of birth at entry into service, later reliance on horoscope material or a birth extract did not prove clerical error, and estoppel could bar a contrary claim. The service-book entry was therefore left unaltered and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184636</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>