Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 371 (KER)

K. A. Varkey v. Kerala State Electricity Board

2002-06-17

CYRIAC JOSEPH, K.THANKAPPAN

body2002
Judgment :- Cyriac Joseph, J. 1. This appeal is against the judgment in O.P. No. 15175/2001 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Appellant is the petitioner in the Original Petition. 2. As per the entries in the service book of the appellant, his date of birth is 21-5-1946. On that basis, he was due to retire from service on 31-5-2001. However, the appellant submitted Ext. P5 representation dated 8/1/2002 praying for correction of his date of birth in the service book as 18-3-1953. In was wrongly recorded in the Service Book as 21-5-1946 due to the mischief of someone who had got personal enmity towards him. He also produced a certificate from St. Pius X Church, Pius Mount, Kizhakamattam which showed that Varkey Kaniyankandathil S/o. Avirah and Mariam was born on 18-3-1953 and was baptized on 24-3-2953. Since the respondents did not correct the date of birth of the appellant even after Ext. P5 representation, the original Petition was filed by the appellant for a direction to the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in his service book. 3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Original Petition holding that the petitioner's application for correction of his date of birth was highly belated and, therefore, he was not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the Original petition. From the impugned judgment it is seen that the service book of the birth was recorded as 21-5-1946 on the basis of a certificate dated 24-5-1986 issued by the St. Pius X Church, Pius Mount, Kizhakkemattam P.O., Via. Melukavumattom, Kottayam District. The learned Single Judge refused to consider the claim of the petitioner based on a fresh certificate issued from the very same church. We do not find any illegality in the decision of the learned Single Judge. When the date of birth in the Service Book is seen recorded on the basis of a certificate issued by the Church, there is no justification for placing reliance on another certificate issued by the Church, there is no justification for placing reliance on another certificate issued by the Church, there is no justification for placing reliance on another certificate issued b the same Church after on another certificate issued by the same Church after several years to support the claim of the person on the eve of his retirement. Merely because the original certificate is not kept in the Service Book, it cannot be presumed that a mistake might have happened while recording the date of birth in the Service Book. Even is such a mistake had happened, the appellant ought to have got it corrected immediately. The absence of the original certificate in the Service Book and the production of a fresh certificate on the eve of retirement cast a shadow on the genuineness of the claim. 4. It is also to be mentioned that the K.S.E.Board was directed by this court to place on record the relevant rules or orders pertaining to correction of date of birth in the service records of employees of the K.S.E.Board. In compliance with the said direction, an affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent Executive Engineer stating that the appellant entered service of the K.S.E.Board as C.L.R. Worker on 13-6-1980. At the time of entry in the service the appellant was paid only daily wages. Subsequently, the K.S.E.Board issued orders granting basic pay to C.L.R.Workers. It was at that juncture that the service book of the appellant was opened during 1986. (It is admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that "1996" has been wrongly mentioned due to a typographical error). It is further stated in the affidavit that the date of birth of the appellant was entered in the service book with reference to the certificate produced by the appellant, at the fag end of his service the appellant made a request before the 3rd respondent for correction of his date of birth stating that his date of birth was wrongly entered in the service book as 21-5-1946 and that his actual date of birth was 18-3-1953. The 3rd respondent forwarded the said application to the 2nd respondent for further action. The Chief Engineer, K.S.E.Board by order dated 27-6-2001 rejected the request of the appellant for correction of his date of birth in the service book. A copy of the communication dated 27-6-2001 from the Chief Engineer is Annexure- R3(a). It is stated in Annexure-R3(a) that the request of Sri. K.A. Varkey,C.L.R. Worker for correction of date of birth in the service book is declined and that nothing of the date of birth as 21-5-1946 in the service book shall prevail. 5. A copy of the communication dated 27-6-2001 from the Chief Engineer is Annexure- R3(a). It is stated in Annexure-R3(a) that the request of Sri. K.A. Varkey,C.L.R. Worker for correction of date of birth in the service book is declined and that nothing of the date of birth as 21-5-1946 in the service book shall prevail. 5. Along with the affidavit the 3rd respondent has also produced circular dated 27-1-1997 of the Kerala State Electricity Board circulating the new standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Act, 1946 in respect of the workmen of the K.S.E. Board. As per the said standing orders, the age of a workman as recorded at the time of his employment shall not normally thereafter be sought to be altered by the workman. However, if a workman produces proof to the satisfaction of the Board within five years of joining service that the age given at the time of appointment happens to be incorrect, the Board may alter the age of the workman. The 3rd respondent has also produced Annexure-R3 (c) order dated 24-11-1992 of the Board according sanction for adaptation of G.O. (P) No. 45/91/P and ARD dated 30-12-1991. The said Government order is Annexure-R3(d). As per Annexure-R3(d), application for correction of date of birth shall be made within five years of entry in service. Thus, as G.O. (P) No. 45/91/P and ARD dated 30-12-1991. The said Government order is Annexure-R3(d). As per Annexure-R3(d), application for correction of date of birth shall be made within five years of entry in service. Thus, as per Annexure-R3(b) Standing Orders and Annexure-R3(c ) Board Order read with G.O. (P) No. 45/91/P & ARD dated 30-12-1991, the appellant's application for correction of his date of birth in the service book was belated and it could not be entertained by the respondents. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified that holding that the petitioner's application for correction of his date of birth was belated. 6. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is dismissed.