Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Abdul Quddhose, J.
Palaniammal - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department and ors. – Respondents
W.P.(MD)No.10911 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.8344 to 8346 of 2017
Decided On : 19-08-2024
Writ Petition - Alteration of Date of Birth - The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of the request to alter the date of birth, emphasizing the lack of timely application and absence of supporting evidence to substantiate the claim of a different birth date, thereby affirming the validity of the service records maintained by the respondent Corporation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to alter his date of birth from 21.03.1956 to 21.03.1966 after retirement, claiming the earlier date was incorrect. The request was rejected by the fourth respondent on grounds of belatedness and lack of evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the petition as the request for alteration was made after the retirement and not within the stipulated five-year period from the date of appointment. The petitioner failed to provide any documentary evidence to support his claim.
Issues: Whether the petitioner could alter his date of birth after retirement and whether the request was made within the permissible time frame.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the alteration of date of birth must be requested within five years of appointment, and without timely application or supporting evidence, the service records are deemed conclusive.
Result: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
ORDER :
Abdul Quddhose, J.
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent vide his proceedings in Ma.Ni.20/35620/2016 dated 03.03.2016 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in service as “Sanitary Worker” in the office of the third respondent till her actual date of retirement ie., 20.03.2026 and further to direct the respondents to pay salary and all other attendant benefits to the petitioner.
The petitioner has challenged the order of the fourth respondent rejecting his request for alteration of his date of birth from 21.03.1956 to 21.03.1966.
2.The fourth respondent while rejecting the petitioner's request under the impugned order has stated that the petitioner's request has been made belatedly and he cannot also challenge his retirement order.
3.Admittedly, the petitioner has not sought for rectification of his date of birth within 5 years from the date of his appointment as per the terms and conditions of the appointment order. He seeks for alteration of his date of birth from 21.03.1956 to 21.03.1966.
4.This Writ Petition has been filed only after he retired from service on 20.03.2016. The petitioner has not produced any order from any Court of law or any other documentary evidence to prove that he was born only on 21.03.1966 and not on 21.03.1956, which is the correct date of birth as per the Service Records maintained by the respondent Corporation.
5.For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
A request for alteration of date of birth in service records must be made within five years of appointment, and the absence of timely application and supporting evidence renders such requests invalid....
Correction of date of birth can only be permitted in exceptional cases with irrefutable proof, and applications can be rejected on the ground of delay and laches, especially when made at the fag end ....
The court ruled that inaccuracies in employment records must be rectified to reflect the correct date of birth, ensuring fair treatment of employees.
A writ petition is not maintainable for the correction of a date of birth in a service record if the petitioner fails to approach the court within a reasonable time and lacks unimpeachable evidence t....
Applications for correction of date of birth in service records can be rejected on grounds of delay and lack of irrefutable proof, especially when made at the fag-end of service.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
