The alteration of date of birth after a considerable time is impermissible, and the court considered the dismissal of the suit seeking alteration of date of birth on the point of limitation.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus by declaring that K. Srinivasa Murthy was entitled to be continued in service till 30.11.2008 based on the original entry of date of birth as 09.11.1942 and seeks a consequential direction to the respondents to recalculate and pay the terminal benefits of K. Srinivas Murthy as if he was in service on the date of his death i.e. 11.11.1999 and also to re-fix the family pension and other reliefs.

2. The petitioners are the legal heirs of K. Srinivas Murthy who was appointed as a Lecturer in History and Politics on 23.07.1965. It is submitted that the original date of birth which was recorded in the service book of K. Srinivas Murthy was 09.11.1942 whereas in the SSLC Certificate it was mentioned as 07.10.1940. It is submitted that the date of birth was wrongly mentioned in the school register as 07.10.1940 instead of 09.11.1942. It is also submitted that the Secretary cum Correspondent accepted the entry of Registrar of Birth and Deaths and recorded the date of Birth of K. Srinivasa Murthy as 09.11.1942 in the Service Register. A copy of the said extract is filed along with the writ petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the 3rd respondent after lapse of 28 years allegedly realized when there is discrepancy in so far as registering the date of birth of K. Srinivas Murthy in the service register and filed a private complaint with the police vide Crime No. 94 of 1993. The Police after preliminary investigation have closed the case as a mistake of fact.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 3rd respondent subsequently appointed a three member enquiry committee vide proceedings dated 25.06.1994 and an enquiry was proposed to be conducted as the alleged suppression of date of birth of K. Srinivasa Murthy was allegedly willful. The three member enquiry committee conducted the enquiry and submitted a report on 25.01.1995 and that on the same day the enquiry report was accepted and a unilateral decision to change the date of birth of K. Srinivasa Murthy from 09.11.1942 to 07.10.1940 was effected and punishment of stoppage of increment on K. Srinivasa Murthy was imposed.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that aggrieved by the unilateral action by the 3rd respondent the K. Srinivasa Murthy filed W.P. No. 6860 of 1995, the said writ petition was disposed of with an observation that S.A. No. 477 of 1999 was pending and the alteration would depend upon the outcome of the said judgment. Aggrieved by the said order W.A. No. 1709 of 1998 was filed, which was allowed on 19.11.1999. By virtue of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court the employee K. Srinivasa Murthy was given an opportunity of going through the enquiry report furnished and submit a detailed explanation together with material if any. The management of the 3rd respondent/college was directed to reconsider the issue and pass a fresh order.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said K. Srinivasa Murthy passed away on 11.11.1999 and the same could not be communicated to the learned counsel for K. Srinivasa Murthy. Now that the alteration of date of birth is set aside by this Court in W.A. No. 1709 of 1998, the 3rd respondent ought to consider that the petitioner was in service till 08.11.2000, the date of superannuation.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled for the service benefits and also the pay till 08.11.2000 as on duty and are also entitled for the re-fixed family pension along with interest.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on Kavita Kureel vs. State of U.P. and Others, W.A. No. 9226 of 2023 and Chief Medical Officer vs. Khadeer Khadri, (1995) 2 SCC 82. The issue with respect to alteration or change of date of birth in records is not permissible after lapse of considerable time and it is also the Hon’ble Su