Back
2016 Supreme(Ker) 652
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, SATHISH NINAN, JJ.
THE GENERAL MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE, DISTRICT CO-OP BANK, KOLLAM CHINNAKADA – Appellant
Vs.
SUDHAKARAN .B.B S/O.BHASKARAN(LATE) – Respondent
W.A. No.2586 of 2015
Decided on : 04-11-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR, SC
For the Respondent: SMT.ASHA BABU, SMT.R.S.ASWINI SANKAR, SRI.ARUNBABY STEPHEN, SRI.S.M.PRASANTH, SMT.S.PARVATHI, SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.), SRI.G.RENJITH, SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM), SHRI M.A. ASIF
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for employees to file applications for correction of date of birth within a reasonable period, despite the absence of a specific limitation under Rule 197. The court emphasized the impact of delayed applications on the service conditions of other employees and the need to discourage such delayed applications.
Headnote:
Date of Birth - Service Records - Rule 197 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - [Rule 197] - The court set aside the order rejecting the correction of date of birth in the service records, emphasizing the absence of any limitation for making an application for change of date of birth in the service records as per Rule 197. However, the court also highlighted the consistent stand taken by the Apex Court in various judgments, emphasizing the need for employees to file applications for correction of date of birth within a reasonable period.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner joined the service with a given date of birth. After several years, he applied for correction of his date of birth in the SSLC Book, which was allowed just three months before his retirement. Subsequently, he filed an application for correction of date of birth in the service records, which was rejected by the appellant-Bank. The writ petitioner then filed a writ petition, which was allowed by the single Judge, directing the appellant to effect necessary changes in the service records. The Writ Appeal was filed against this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in filing the application for correction of date of birth in the service records, especially just three months before retirement, was not justified. The court emphasized the need for employees to file applications for correction of date of birth within a reasonable period, as per the consistent stand taken by the Apex Court in various judgments.
Issues: The main issue was whether the rejection of the application for correction of date of birth in the service records was justified, considering the absence of any limitation for making such an application as per Rule 197.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while Rule 197 does not prescribe any limitation for making an application for change of date of birth in the service records, the consistent stand taken by the Apex Court emphasizes the need for employees to file applications for correction of date of birth within a reasonable period. The court also highlighted the impact of delayed applications on the service conditions of other employees and the need to discourage such delayed applications.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned judgment and rejecting the writ petition seeking correction of date of birth entry in the service records on the eve of the petitioner's retirement. The court also expressed hope for necessary amendments to Rule 197 to restrict the period for correction of date of birth in the service records.
MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, C.J.
Judgment dated 26.11.2015 passed in W.P(C) No.28185 of 2015 is the subject matter in this Writ Appeal.
2. By the impugned judgment, the learned single Judge has set aside Ext.P9 Government Order dated 16.06.2015 to the extent it imposes a limitation that the corrected date of birth shall not be used in the writ petitioner's service records. Consequently, the order, Ext.P13 by which the appellant-Bank has rejected the application filed by the employee/writ petitioner for correcting the date of birth in the service records is also set aside. A direction is issued by the learned single Judge to the appellant to effect necessary changes in the service records of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 as regards his date of birth and to extend all consequential benefits to him which he is entitled to.
3. At the time of issuing notice in this appeal, this Court stayed the operation of the impugned judgment and consequently, correction of the date of birth of the writ petitioner in the service records is not effected.
4. Writ petitioner joined the service of the appellant on 09.04.1991. At the time of joining, he had given his date of birth as 30.11.1957 and the very date of birth was entered in his service records. The said entry in the service records was made based on the entry in the SSLC Book. The date of retirement of the writ petitioner was 30.11.2015, after attaining the age of 58 years (by that time the petitioner completed 24 years of service). These facts are not in dispute.
5. Writ petitioner made an application for correction of date of birth in his SSLC Book on 01.01.2007. He made a representation on 01.09.2009 before the concerned authority for condoning the delay in filing the application for making correction of date of birth in the SSLC Book. Thereafter certain clarification was sought for by the authority from the writ petitioner on 22.12.2009 as per Ext.P3. The Education Department once again sought for further details regarding the matter as is evident from Exts.P4 to P7 correspondences. The representation filed by the writ petitioner for condonation of delay in making the application seeking correction of date of birth in the SSLC book was allowed as per Ext.P9 dated 16.06.2015. Ultimately, the Joint Commissioner for Government Examinations corrected the date of birth entry in the SSLC Book of the writ petitioner on 03.08.2015 as per Ext.P10. Thus, the date of birth of the writ petitioner was changed from 30.11.1957 to 21.11.1958 on 03.08.2015. The first page of the SSLC Book of the writ petitioner, after correction of his date of birth, is produced as Ext.P11. It is thereafter that the writ petitioner filed an application on 12.08.2015 as Ext.P12 to make necessary correction regarding his date of birth, in the service records. The appellant rejected the prayer of the writ petitioner for change of date of birth in its service records, as per Ext.P13 order. Questioning the said order, the writ petitioner filed W.P(C) No.28185 of 2015, which is allowed as per the impugned judgment.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, taking cue from the materials on record submits that Rule 197 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (for short, "the Rules") cannot be made use of by the employees including the writ petitioner, after decades, as per their whims and fancies for correcting date of birth in service records. The benefit of Rule 197 may have to be granted to the persons who approach the authorities for change of date of birth within a reasonable period from their date of entry into service.
7. Per contra, learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner argued in support of the impugned judgment contending that the impugned judgment is in consonance with the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kannadi Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. v. Viswanathan (1998[2] KLT 573) and the Full Bench judgment in Kunhikrishnan v. State of Kerala (1982 KLT 13). He further submitted
