Back
2007 Supreme(Mad) 630
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
S. Kannan
Versus
Metro Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Div. I, Chennai - 2. & Another
W.P.No.16511 of 1998
Decided On : 21-02-2007
For the Petitioner:D.Hariparanthaman, Advocate. For the Respondents:V.R. Kamalanathan, Advocate.
Belated claims for correction of date of birth should not be entertained, especially on the eve of superannuation, in accordance with the applicable service rules and established legal principles.
Headnote:
Date of Birth - Employment Dispute - Rule 32(iv) of the Certified Standing Orders - 2004 (1) LW 279, 2004 (3) SCC 394, 2005 (6) SCC 49 - The court discussed the discrepancy in the date of birth entry in various documents and the service register, and applied Rule 32(iv) of the Certified Standing Orders to reject the petitioner's belated claim for correction of date of birth. The court also cited relevant judgments to support the contention that belated claims for correction of date of birth should not be entertained, especially on the eve of superannuation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a backward class candidate, disputed the date of birth recorded in the service register, seeking correction to extend his service beyond the original retirement date. The respondents relied on the standing orders to reject the petitioner's claim, leading to a legal dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's belated claim for correction of date of birth was not maintainable as per the service rules, and dismissed the writ petition. However, the court directed the respondents not to recover the salary paid to the petitioner for the extended service period.
Issues: Discrepancy in date of birth entry, applicability of service rules, and entitlement to retirement benefits for extended service period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Rule 32(iv) of the Certified Standing Orders and cited relevant judgments to establish that belated claims for correction of date of birth should not be entertained, especially on the eve of superannuation.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, but the respondents were directed not to recover the salary paid to the petitioner for the extended service period.
Prayer in this writ petition is to quash the order in Memo No.8762/Pa.Pi(Po) 1/Ma.Po.Ka/97 dt.7. 98 of the second respondent retiring the petitioner from service with effect from 310. 98 and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service upto 310. 2005.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition as stated in the pleadings are as follows.
(a) Petitioner was born on 210. 1947 and he belongs to backward class community. He studied upto SSLC (11th Standard – Old pattern) and his SSLC certificate mentions his date of birth as 210. 1947. Petitioner registered his name in the Employment Exchange, Cuddalore, and his name was sponsored in the year 1975 for selection to the post of conductor. According to the petitioner, candidates belonging to BC community were eligible for appointment for the post of conductor, if they were below 33 years of age and for SC, ST candidates the age restriction was 35 years and in case of open competition, the maximum age prescribed was 30 years of age.
(b) Petitioner being a backward class candidate and his age was below 33 years in the year 1975, his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and he was selected and appointed as Conductor by order dated 5. 1975. According to the petitioner, at the time of joining in the post, he furnished his SSLC book and the date of birth in the bio-data stating that his date of birth was 210. 1947.
(c) It is further stated in the affidavit that service register was opened and the petitioner was not given a chance to verify the date of birth entry made in the service register. In the year 1984, the pay bill section, shown the petitioner’s date of birth as 210. 1949. The said recording of Date of Birth is a mistate committed by the respondent.
(d) Petitioner, while serving in Adyar Depot, received a communication dated 210. 1997 from the Head Office that the petitioner will be retiring on 310. 1998 as he is allegedly completing 58 years of age and at that time, petitioner submitted a representation to correct the petitioners date of birth as 210. 1947 as per the entry in his SSLC book and transfer certificate. The Assistant Manager (Personnel) by communication dated 23. 1998 requested the petitioner to produce the original SSLC certificate and transfer certificate issued by the School. Petitioner produced the same. However, he failed to pass any order and requested the petitioner to make representation to the Managing Director, pursuant to which, petitioner submitted a representation on 14. 1998 to the Managing Director and requested him to treat his date of birth as 210. 1947 and not as 210. 1940.
(e) The second respondent passed imugned order dated 7. 1998 stating that petitioners date of birth as per their record is 210. 1940 and he has to retire on 310. 1998. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Managing Director on 8. 1998 and no order is passed in the appeal. Hence the petitioner filed the above writ petition and challenged the order of second respondent with a further direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner in service upto 310. 2005.
3. Respondents filed counter affidavit and stated that at the time of appointment i.e., on 5. 1975, petitioners date of birth was entered in the service register as 210. 1940 based on the entry made in the SSLC Book issued by the Head Master, Government High School, Puranasingapalayam, Pondicherry. Petitioner also signed in the service register after perusing the entry about his date of birth as 210. 1940. Petitioner has not taken any steps to correct the date of birth in the service book in accordance with rule 31 of the standing orders, according to which, the date of birth entry made by the appointing authority at the time of initial appointment shall be final after the period of five years. Petitioner having submitted application to change his date of birth after a period of 23 years, the said request is not maintainable as per the service rules. Petitioner is
