Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 823 (MAD)

A. Lukose v. District Collector

2015-02-10

V.M.VELUMANI

body2015
Judgment :- 1. This Writ Petition has been filed directing the respondents herein to permit the petitioner to continue as Water Supply Assistant in the third respondent Panchayat till 31.12.2016 and pay salary from June 2012 with all consequential monetary and service benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that on 29.01.1993, he was appointed as Water Supply Assistant (Kudineer Udanalar) in the third respondent Panchayat on daily wage basis. The first respondent fixed his wage from time to time for his cadre and the third respondent disbursed the salary every month to the petitioner. While so, the third respondent did not pay the salary from June 2012 till September 2012 without any reason. Therefore, the petitioner requested the third respondent for payment of salary. He was informed orally that he attained the age of superannuation and he was relieved with effect from 31.05.2012 as per instructions of the second respondent. According to the petitioner, his date of birth is 27.12.1956 and therefore, he is entitled to be in service till 31.12.2016. In the circumstances, he made representation dated 05.10.2012 to the respondents and another representation dated 12.11.2012 to the first respondent to continue him in service till 31.12.2016. However, no orders were passed on his representations. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, for the relief stated supra. 3. The second respondent has filed counter affidavit, denying the various averments made by the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner's date of birth has been entered as 11.05.1952 in the service records and he has not made any representation for correction of his date of birth within five years from the date of his appointment. Further, in the writ petition filed by the petitioner in the year 2005, he has stated that his age as 52 years. He attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2012. The third respondent, by proceedings in Na.Ka.No.15 of 2012, dated 31.05.2012, relieved the petitioner from service, as he attained the age of superannuation. On 21.09.2012, the third respondent passed a resolution, approving the retirement of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District, and obtained an order only in the year 2010. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the writ petition and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. On 21.09.2012, the third respondent passed a resolution, approving the retirement of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District, and obtained an order only in the year 2010. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the writ petition and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents reiterated the averments made in the affidavit and the counter affidavit. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed an additional typed set of papers consisting of an order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, in Crl.M.P.No.2670 of 2010. 7. From the records, it seen that the third respondent by his letter, dated 30.01.2010, directed the petitioner to produce the birth certificate. In the service record, the petitioner's date of birth has been entered as 11.05.1952. As per the Service Rules, if there is any error or mistake in the entries made in the service record, the employee must take steps to get the same rectified within five years of entering into his/her service. The petitioner has not taken any steps till 2009 and only in the year 2010, he took steps to get his date of birth registered before the concerned authority. Even after getting the same registered in the year 2010, he has not taken any steps to correct his date of birth in the service records. Only after he was relieved on attaining the age of superannuation, he has given a representation, dated 05.10.2012, enclosing the certificate of date of birth issued in the year 2010. The petitioner has not acted diligently and only in the year 2010, his alleged date of birth is registered with the authority and he has left over his right for such a long period. Therefore, he is not entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.