M. Sagunthala vs Director (Personnel), Neyveli Lignite Corporation and Others

M. Jaichandren, J.�Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellant, as well as the respondents. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 5.1.2011, made in W.P. No. 29003 of 2010.

The petitioner in the Writ Petition, in W.P. No. 29003 of 2010, is the appellant in the present Writ Appeal. The appellant had filed the Writ Petition praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 23.10.2010, and the consequential order of the fourth respondent, dated 29.11.2010, and to direct the respondents to enter the petitioner''s date of birth, as 8.7.1954, in the service records, in accordance with Clause 6.6 of the Certified Standing Orders of the respondent Neyveli Lignite Corporation.

The appellant had claimed that she was born on 8.7.1954 and the said date of birth was recorded in the school certificate. As the appellant was not in possession of any document, she was subjected to medical examination, in which her age had been assessed as 49 years, as on 1.1.2000. The appellant, on attaining the age of superannuation, had been discharged from service, on 31.12.2010. Thereafter, the appellant had found certain records, based on which she had requested for a change of her date of birth.

It had been contended on behalf of the appellant that the date of birth assessed through medical examination cannot be said to be accurate and final. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to the correction of her date of birth, in view of the documents produced in support of her claims. The learned single Judge had rejected the claims made on behalf of the appellant, stating that there could be no dispute with regard to her contention that the exact date of birth cannot be found by a medical examination. However, the learned single Judge had noted that the date of birth of the appellant had been recorded, vide proceedings, dated 4.1.2003, at the time of her induction into service. She had been working in the respondent Neyveli Lignite Corporation, without raising any objection, in respect of her date of birth, as recorded by the said corporation. However, the appellant had requested for the change of her date of birth close to the date of her superannuation. The learned single Judge had stated that it is a well settled position in law that an employee cannot seek correction of the date of birth at the end of his or career and the date of birth recorded in the service records at the time of the entry into service of the employee concerned ought to be taken to be the correct date of birth, unless it is changed during the appropriate stage of his or her employment, in accordance with the procedures established by law.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had submitted that the relevant clause of the Certified Standing Orders makes it clear that the respondent Neyveli Lignite Corporation had violated the said Clause in rejecting the claims of the appellant. It had been further submitted that, when the appellant had joined the Neyveli Lignite Corporation Indcoserve, she had declared her date of birth as 8.7.1954. Later, while she was absorbed by the respondent Neyveli Lignite Corporation, at the beginning of the year 2000, she had stated her correct date of birth supported by a valid certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Virudhachalam. Thereafter, on tracing her school records, she had submitted them, along with a letter, dated 11.12.2002. By an office order, dated 4.1.2003, the Special Officer, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Indcoserve had assessed her age as 49 years, as on 1.1.2000. The appellant had submitted an explanation, dated 7.1.2003. In the Attestation Form, dated 14.7.2003, the appellant had declared her date of birth as 8.7.1954. Subsequently, the respondent Neyveli Lignite Corporation had issued her an identity card, dated 15.11.2003, specifically mentioning her date of birth as 8.7.1954. She had also sent several representations to the respondent Neyveli Lignite Corporation, enclosing the necessary documents, as proof of her date of birth, which is 8.7.1954. However, the respondent Neyveli Lignite Corporation had rejected the claim made by the appellant, arbitrarily, without going into the merits of the matter. In such circumstances, the appellant had preferred the present Writ Appeal before this court.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had stated that the appellant had been inducted into service in the Neyveli Lignite Corporation Indcoserve during the year, 1990. The appellant had given an undertaking, dated 24.7.2000, stating that she would not make any representation, with regard to her age, at a later point of time. The appellant had not produced any records, in respect of her claim relating to her age. The medical officer concerned had confirmed the age of the appellant as 49 years, as on 1.1.2000. A medical book had also been opened on 5.9.2003 in the name of the appellant. The appellant had also signed the same without raising any objections. Thus, it could be seen that the appellant had not raised any objection with regard to her date of birth as entered in the records of the respondent Neyveli Lignite Corporation. The medical book and the identify card had also been issued, by the Neyveli Lignite Corporation, based on the information given by the appellant and she had also made an endorsement on the identify card issued to her. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had also stated that the abstract of the register produced by the appellant, dated 31.7.1989, cannot be believed as it is not in the prescribed format. In such circumstances, the claims made on behalf of the appellant cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, we are of the considered view that the appellant has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge, dated 5.1.2011, made in W.P. No. 29003 of 2010. Even though the appellant had made certain claims relating to her date of birth she had not substantiated her claims, with sufficient and acceptable evidence. It is also noted that the appellant had not raised any objection with regard to the initial entry, relating to the date of birth of the appellant, in the relevant records, at the time of her joining in service. It is only at the end of her service she had raised certain objections claiming that her real date of birth is 8.7.1954. It is a well settled position in law, as held by the learned single Judge, in his order, dated 5.1.2011, that the person making certain claims, with regard to his actual date of birth, ought to have raised it at the earliest point of time, during her service. It would not be open to the person concerned to raise such issues, at the end of the service of the said person. In such circumstances, we find no merit in the present Writ appeal. Hence, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.