IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 18.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR L.Chinnaiya ... Petitioner vs

1. The Commissioner, Sugar Mills, Periyar E.V.R. Complex, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.

2. The Superintendent, Perambalur Sugar Mills Ltd., Eraiyur P.O.

Permabalur District, Tamil Nadu - 621 133. … Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Cetriorari, to call for the records leading to the impugned proceedings of the second respondent dated 02.02.2018 in Na.Ka.No.184/2015/E1 and quash the same and consequentially direct the respondents to take note of the petitioner's date of birth as per the birth certificate produced by the petitioner and re-initiate the petitioner as Mazdoor in the second respondent Mill and pass orders.

For Petitioner : Mr.Anirud Narayen for Ms.R.Ramya For Respondents : Mr.E.P.Senniyangiri Government Advocate for R1 Mr.R.Parthiban for R2

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent and perused the records.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that, at the time of joining with the second respondent Mill as a daily wage labourer, his date of birth has been noted as

08.05.1958, while his actual date of birth is 02.07.1962.

3. The petitioner further contended that the aforesaid error in recording the date of birth on School records had occurred on account of his uncle representing him, at the time he being admitted into School.

4. Further, the case of the petitioner is that after noticing the aforesaid omission, of wrong date of birth being entered into school record, he had approached the concerned District Court and obtained an order dated 22.03.2016, whereby, his correct date of birth has been declared as 02.07.1962.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that, on obtaining the said certificate correcting his date of birth, he had approached the respondent authority and sought for correcting/altering his date of birth in his records; and that the second respondent vide proceedings dated 30.01.2019, stated that the petitioner should have altered the date of birth within five years from the date of entering into service and as such, the application submitted by the petitioner to correct/alter the date of birth after 27 years of service, cannot be entertained; that the petitioner had submitted the application for change of date of birth only after being appointed as regular Mazdoor vide appointment letter dated 07.07.2015 and as such, the action of the respondent in refusing to correct/alter the date of birth of the petitioner in his record is illegal and arbitrary and thus, the impugned proceedings dated 02.02.2018 is liable to be quashed.

6. Counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent is filed.

7. By the counter affidavit, it is contended that in the bio-data form submitted by the petitioner at the time of joining with the second respondent Mill, the date of birth has been mentioned as 08.03.1958 and the date of securing educational qualification of second passed has also mentioned as 03.06.1964.

8. By the counter affidavit, it is further contended that the petitioner, while filing the Suit vide O.S.No.671 of 2016, seeking correction of date of birth, did not implead the second respondent as a party, by mentioning that he is being employed with the said respondent and without impleading the second respondent as a party respondent to the aforesaid Suit, the petitioner had obtained the order in O.S.No.671 of 2016, wherein, only Sub Registrar, Valikandapuram has been arrayed as a defendant.

9. By the counter affidavit, the second respondent further contended that since, the petitioner initially joined the second respondent as daily wage labourer in the year 1982 and after putting in required year of service, his services have been regularized and he joined as Mazdoor on 10.07.2015, wher