AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Murugesan, J.—In Writ Petition No. 7099 of 2001, the Petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the
Respondent to correct the wrongly entered date of birth of the Petitioner, i.e. 26.8.1943 in his service records as 16.7.1950.
In Writ Petition No. 14363 of 2001, the Petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records from the
Respondent relating to their order No. TSTC/KUM/Admn.8/PO/194/ 2001, dated 31.7.2001, quash the same and direct the Respondent to
correct the wrongly entered date of birth of the Petitioner i.e. 26.8.1943 in his service records as 16.7.1950.
The Petitioner is a re-patriate from Ceylon and he studied upto VI Standard in Government School in Veradapattanathottam, Paniakanakku
Division, Madulsina P.C., Badulai District, Srilanka and the Petitioner was re-patriated into India by Indo-Ceylon agreement during the year 1964.
The Petitioner was appointed as a driver in the Respondent Corporation by order dated 15.2.1980. At the time of his appointment, the Petitioner
produced the documents to show his date of birth as 16.7.1950. Based upon the documents furnished by the Petitioner, the date of birth of the
Petitioner was entered in the records maintained by the Respondent Corporation including the identity card issued by the Respondent for the year
1983-84 as 16.7.1950.
On 28.11.1983, the Petitioner met with an accident and he lost his right leg upto thigh. After recovery from illness, the Petitioner requested for
re-employment and he was re-employed as a helper by order dated 3.7.1984 on the basis of a settlement dated 2.6.1984, u/s 18(1) of the
Industrial Disputes Act. After the re-appointment, the Petitioner was issued with an identity card on 17.6.1986 for the year 1985-86 and in the
said identity card, it was mentioned that the date of birth of the Petitioner as 26.8.1943 by mistake. Since the above said change in the date of birth
was made by the Respondent, the Petitioner immediately made a representation on 19.12.1986 requesting the Respondent Corporation to correct
the date of birth as 16.7.1950 instead of 26.8.1943. Since the same was not corrected, the Petitioner is constrained to file Writ Petition No. 7099
of 2001 for a direction to the Respondent to correct the date of birth as 16.7.1950.
Pending the above writ petition, the Petitioner was superannuated on 4.8.2001 based upon the wrong entry of his date of birth entered in his
service records as 26.8.1943. Therefore, the Petitioner is constrained to file another writ petition, namely, Writ Petition No. 14363 of 2001
challenging the said order of the Respondent dated 31.7.2001.
Mr. S. Ayyathurai, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the Petitioner has produced the documents to show his date of birth as
16.7.1950. On that basis, the Petitioner was issued with an identity card prior to his re-appointment on 3.7.1984. It was a mistake committed by
the Respondent on the re-appointed of the Petitioner in entering a wrong date of birth as 26.8.1943, instead of 16.7.1950. In spite of repeated
representations, the same has not been corrected and the Petitioner was in fact superannuated from 4.8.2001.
The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has further submitted that there was no material before the Respondent to effect the change in
the date of birth of the Petitioner in the service records. Hence, the learned Counsel submitted that the Respondent should be directed to correct
the date of birth in the service register as 16.7.1950 and allow the Petitioner to work till the date of superannuation on the basis of the above date
of birth.
Mr. T. Arulraj, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, on the other hand, would submit that when the Petitioner was appointed on
15.2.1980 as driver, he did not produce the certificates, evidencing his correct date of birth. Further, after reappointment, the date of birth of the
Petitioner was entered as 26.8.1943. The said date of birth was entered on the basis of his family card issue on 26.8.1975 stating that his age was
32 years. Therefore, the date of birth of the Petitioner was fixed as 26.8.1943.
The learned Counsel would also submit that in any case, the date of birth was effected during the year 1985 and the Petitioner ought to have
made an application for changing the date of birth within a period of five years as per the rules and therefore, he is not entitled to question the same
after a delay of sixteen years. The learned Counsel also submitted that when an enquiry committee was appointed to go into the correctness of the
date of birth of the Petitioner after his re-appointment he did not produce the relevant documents to the committee and therefore, the Petitioner
was superannuated from 4.6.2001.
I have considered the rival submissions.
The Petitioner was re-patriated from Srilanka. In the typed-set of papers filed by the Petitioner, he has enclosed a copy of the passport, which
contains the date of birth as 16.7.1950 and the identity card issued by the Srilanka Authorities also disclosed the age of the Petitioner as
16.7.1950. The identity card issued by the Respondent for the financial year 1983-84 dated 2.12.1983 also disclosed the date of the Petitioner as
16.7.1950. However, when the Petitioner met with an accident on 26.11.1983, he could not be accommodated as a driver and after his treatment,
he was appointed on 3.7.1984 on the basis of a settlement entered into on 2.6.1984 u/s 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. After the said re-
appointment, the Petitioner was issued with an identity card and his date of birth was entered as 26.8.1943. The submission of the learned Counsel
for the Respondent to arrive at the said date of birth is on the basis of the age of the Petitioner entered in the family card as 32 years, which was
issued on 26.8.1975.
In my considered view, the date ox birth is a fact, which cannot be altered by anybody. Merely because the family card issued on 26.8.1975
contains the age of the Petitioner as 32 years, his date of birth cannot be recorded as 26.8.1943. Moreover, when the Petitioner was appointed,
he was issued with an identity card on 2.12.1983 by the very same Respondent wherein the date of birth of the Petitioner was mentioned as
16.7.1950. There was no explanation from the Respondent as to how this date of birth viz., 16.7.1950 was entered in the identity card issued on
2.12.1983. In the absence of any explanation, this Court necessarily has to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that at
the time of appointment of the Petitioner, he has produced all the documents, evidencing his date of birth as 16.7.1950 and the Respondent has
entered the said date of birth only on the basis of the records. When the Respondent sought to change the said date of birth, it is for the
Respondent to explain as to how the date of birth already entered in the service records of the Petitioner is altered. The only reason, as referred to
above, suggested by the Respondent is that the subsequent date of birth was entered on the basis of the family card issued on 26.8.1975. When
this Court comes to the conclusion that the date of birth cannot be fixed or calculated on the basis of the age of the Petitioner mentioned in the
family card, more particularly, the contra evidence/ document produced by the Petitioner, namely, passport and other certificates issued by the
Srilankan Authorities as well as the identity card issued by the very same Respondent on 2.12.1983 containing the date of birth of the Petitioner as
16.7.1950, the Respondent has committed mistake in recording the correct date of birth while issuing identity card and hence, the Respondent
should be directed to correct the date of birth of the Petitioner in the service records as 16.7.1950. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are
allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. 10186 of 2001 is closed.