Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 5207 (MAD)

K. Ranganathan v. Union of India

2010-11-30

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN, ELIPE DHARMA RAO

body2010
Judgment :- Elipe Dharma Rao, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 25.9.2006 made in O.A.No.182 of 2006 and seeks to quash the same and also for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to permit him to work continuously till he attains superannuation ie., 07.5.2011, or in the alternative to pay the allowances and other monetary benefits to him for the period from 04.4.2007 to 07.05.2011. 2. The case of the petitioner, who was working as GDS Packer in the second respondent Division of the Postal Department from 01.9.1966, is that he was born on 07.5.1946 and that at the time of appointment, the same date was given for the record purposes. It is stated that on coming to know of the publication of the seniority list of ED Agent, he made a representation on 07.01.1992 for correction of his date of birth as 07.5.1946 instead of 03.4.1942 but the correction was not carried out and the seniority list was published showing his date of birth as 03.4.1942. Therefore, he made another representation dated 29.3.2005 to the second respondent and the same was rejected by letter dated 28.4.2005 stating that his request for change of date of birth as 07.5.1946 cannot be considered as alteration of date of birth should be applied within five years from the date of his entry into service. It is further stated that a similar request was made by two others persons and their requests were considered and corrections were made with regard to their date of birth. The main grievance of the petitioner is that since his date of birth was wrongly entered even in the second seniority list, he made another representation dated 18.5.2005 requesting for alteration of his date of birth in the official records but the same was also rejected. The said order of rejection dated 28.4.2005 was impugned before the Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal, on consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the materials placed before it, found that the applicant was not able to substantiate his contention with relevant documents and accordingly, dismissed the Original Application. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. The said order of rejection dated 28.4.2005 was impugned before the Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal, on consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the materials placed before it, found that the applicant was not able to substantiate his contention with relevant documents and accordingly, dismissed the Original Application. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that though the petitioner had given his correct date of birth as 07.05.1946 to the second respondent at the time of joining as ED Packer, wrong entry has been made by the officials as 03.4.1942 and because of the mistake committed by the officials, the petitioner is deprived of his benefits. He also relied on the requests considered by the similarly placed persons with regard to the alteration of date of birth and hence, according to him, denial of alteration of his date of birth to the petitioner alone would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. He submitted that the Tribunal while passing the order, has not gone into the said aspect and the same is liable to be dismissed and sought for interference of this Court by allowing the petitioner to serve for the rest of the period. 5. Learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel representing the Department, reiterating the very same contentions raised in the counter, submitted that in the seniority list as on 31.12.1990 published on 30.3.1991 and another list as on 01.01.1996 published on 12.3.1996, the date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 03.4.1942. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has not made any representation during the year 1992 but only in the year 2005, a representation was received from the petitioner with regard to alteration of date of birth and the same was also rejected by the authorities. Insofar as the reliance made by the petitioner with respect to the similarly placed persons, learned counsel submitted that it was typographical error in the seniority list and hence, correction was made and the same would not amount to alteration of date of birth. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 7. The fact remains that the petitioner entered into service in the year 1966. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 7. The fact remains that the petitioner entered into service in the year 1966. The only dispute that has arisen is the representation dated 07.01.1992 requesting for alteration of date of birth, said to have been made by the petitioner, was not considered by the respondents. The respondents have categorically denied the alleged representation of the petitioner during the year 1992 whereas the receipt of representation made by the petitioner during 2005 is accepted and it was rejected as per the Rules. 8. Even otherwise, it is for the petitioner to prove his date of birth by producing relevant documents. Even assuming that the petitioner’s date of birth was wrongly entered in the official records as per the defence taken by the petitioner, he must have made representation immediately on coming to know of the same. It is the admitted case that the first seniority list was published on 30.3.1991 whereas the petitioner made the first representation regarding alteration of date of birth only on 07.01.1992. If really, the petitioner was aggrieved and was having relevant materials to prove his date of birth, he must have taken the issue immediately when the seniority list was published. It is also not his case that he made representation after 07.01.1992 or between 07.01.1992 and 29.3.2005. Therefore, it is clear that the contention of the petitioner is not based on facts and evidence and hence, the same is to be rejected. 9. As per Rule 281 of P&T FHB Manual Vol.I, the date of birth of a Government servant once recorded cannot be altered except in case of clerical error. That apart, the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments, has held that the requests for change of date of birth should not be entertained at the fag end of the official career of a Government servant. In the present case, even at the time of filing of the writ petition in the year 2007, the petitioner was about to attain the age of superannuation. As such, it is clear that the petitioner has made representation when he was 58 years old and filed the Original Application at his 59 years. More over, the petitioner is not able to produce any document to show his date of birth as 07.05.1946. As such, it is clear that the petitioner has made representation when he was 58 years old and filed the Original Application at his 59 years. More over, the petitioner is not able to produce any document to show his date of birth as 07.05.1946. Therefore, in the absence of any material to establish the age of the petitioner, we are not in a position to take a different view from that of the Tribunal, which is based on facts. 10. In view of the foregoing reasons, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.