Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 677 (KER)

Ponnappan v. State of Kerala

2000-12-18

K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR

body2000
JUDGMENT K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. Petitioner is a Field Officer working in the Animal Husbandary Department. His application for correction of date of birth in the service book had been turned down by Government as per Exts.P8 and P12. That is why he is before this court impugning the said orders. 2. As per the rules contained in the Kerala Service Rules, on entry in service, a service book has to be opened and the date of birth has to be entered in the service book as contained in the school records. In the service book, the date of birth of the petitioner is entered as 21-12-1945 as was shown in his S.S.L.C. Book. While so, far later in 1986, on the strength of a birth certificate issued from the Panchayat, the petitioner found that his date of birth is 22-12-1946. Accordingly, petitioner made Ext. P3 application dated 15-10-1992 before the second respondent the Director of Animal Husbandary, Trivandrum, to correct the date of birth entered in the service book. At that time, the authority to order correction was the Government and not the second . respondent. Moreover, the petitioner also had not obtained the corresponding correction in the school records in tune with the birth certificate Ext. P1. There was a delay in that regard and that was condoned and finally, the petitioner obtained orders in 1996 to correct the date of birth entered in the school records as 22-12-1946 instead of 21-11-1945. Correction effected is as contained in Ext. P6. Thereupon, the petitioner represented, in Ext. P7 dated 25-9-1996 before Government to correct the date of birth entered in his service book. That was rejected as per Ext. P8 which reads as follows: "I am to invite a reference to the representation cited and to inform you that you have not submitted application to Govt. for sanction to correct your date of birth in service records within time limit specified in G.O.(P) No.45/91/P & ARD dated 30-12-1991. Hence your request cannot be considered." 3. Petitioner did not stop there. He made further request which was rejected as per Ext. P9. Petitioner again made a request as per Ext. P10 and then approached this court seeking a direction for its disposal. As per Ext. P11, this court directed the Government to consider and to pass orders on the said representation. Finally, the Government issued Ext. Petitioner did not stop there. He made further request which was rejected as per Ext. P9. Petitioner again made a request as per Ext. P10 and then approached this court seeking a direction for its disposal. As per Ext. P11, this court directed the Government to consider and to pass orders on the said representation. Finally, the Government issued Ext. P12 order, again rejecting the request of the petitioner mainly on the reason that it was beyond the time limit provided for in G.O.(P) 45/91/P & ARD dated 30-12-1991. Ext. P14 is the Government Order governing correction of date of birth in the service book. 4. An incumbent does not have a right to get the date of birth corrected unless any rule or Government Order provides so. At the relevant time, if Ext. P14 was not there, petitioner would not have got the right to approach the Government. Petitioner applied on that basis also. In such circumstances, petitioner has to strictly conform to Ext. P14 which provides for a time limit as well. The time limit prescribed in Ext. P14 is an inseparable part of that order, which makes a Government servant eligible to apply for correction of date of birth. When that order provides for a time limit, beyond that time limit, one cannot seek correction of date of birth. Therefore, the view taken in Exts.P7 and P8 are perfectly justified. 5. In Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala (1999 (3) KLT SN 65 (DB) (page 63) and Paulose v. Secretary to Government (2000 (1) KLT SN 23)(DB) it has been made clear that the issue regarding correction of date of birth is a matter regarding factual position and when once it is decided by the administrative authority, there arise nothing for interference under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Recently, the Supreme Court in G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., West Bengal v. Shib Kumar Dushad and others (Civil Appeal No. 6142/ 2000) decided on 2nd November, 2000 (reported in November link of Supreme Court Case Law.com.) has held as follows: " ... 6. Recently, the Supreme Court in G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., West Bengal v. Shib Kumar Dushad and others (Civil Appeal No. 6142/ 2000) decided on 2nd November, 2000 (reported in November link of Supreme Court Case Law.com.) has held as follows: " ... in a case where the controversy over the date of birth of an employee has been raised long after joining the service and the matter has engaged the attention of the authority concerned and has been determined by following the procedure prescribed under Service Rules or General instructions issued by the employer and it is not the case of the employee that there has been any arithmetical mistake or typographical error patent on the face of the record, the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the , Constitution should not interfere with the decision of the employer." 7. Petitioner entered service long ago. He made an application as evidenced by Ext. P3 seeking correction of date of birth raising a dispute long after joining of service. His case was that there is an arithmetical error in converting the Malayalam Era into English Era. No Malayalam Era was entered in the petitioner's S.S.L.C. Book corresponding to the date of birth ie. 21-12-1945. At the time of the petitioner's entry into service, the entry in the school record was carried over to the service book and at that time, also, there was no conversional mistake, there was no arithmetical mistake, or there was no typographical mistake. It was far later that the petitioner found that in the school register which came into existence at the time of his admission to the school to first standard somewhere about in 1950, there happened a mistake. This is not something which can be agitated in 1996 as an arithmetical mistake. The Supreme Court further held in the said case as follows: "The date of birth of an employee is not only important for the employee but for the employer also. On the length of service put in by the employee depends the quantum of retiral benefits he would be entitled to. The Supreme Court further held in the said case as follows: "The date of birth of an employee is not only important for the employee but for the employer also. On the length of service put in by the employee depends the quantum of retiral benefits he would be entitled to. Therefore, while determining the dispute in such matters courts should bear in mind that a change of the date of birth long after joining service, particularly when the employee is due to retire shortly which will upset the date recorded in the service records maintained in due course of administration should not generally be accepted." 8. This is a complete answer to the petitioner's case. The original petition thus fails and it is accordingly dismissed.