AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The petitioner herein is aggrieved by Exhibit P10 order by which his application for correction of date of birth in the service book was rejected on the ground that it is not within the time as stipulated in G.O.(P) No. 45/91/P&ARD dated 30.12.1991.
A short resume of the facts shows the following: The date of the birth of the petitioner is 18.01.1954 but it was mistakenly entered as 02.12.1952 in his S.S.L.C book. By Exhibit P1, the application for correction of date of birth in the S.S.L.C book was allowed by the Commissioner for Government Examination. Exhibit P2 is the corrected copy of the relevant page of the S.S.L.C book. The petitioner had joined the 3rd respondent-College as Lecturer and he filed an application way back on 24.02.1982 to make necessary corrections in his service book also before the employer. Exhibit P5 is an application submitted by him before the Secretary, Higher Education Department and the same is dated 25.11.1992. Exhibit P6 is the covering letter forwarded along with the same. Thereafter, by Exhibit P7 he was directed to produce the S.S.L.C book and some other materials and accordingly, he forwarded all the details.
The petitioner has got a case that he was a party to a proceeding before the Taluk Land Board, Thalassery and he had produced the original of his S.S.L.C book before the Taluk Land Board, and subsequently when the matter came up before this Court in revision from the order of the Taluk Land Board, along with other materials S.S.L.C book had also been sent to this Court. After the disposal of the case, he got back his S.S.L.C book only in June 2002. Thereafter, he produced the S.S.L.C book before the competent authority as per Exhibit P9. But by Exhibit P10, the application was rejected stating that he failed to apply within the time allowed.
It is clear from the above averments that the application filed by the petitioner for correction of entry in the service record is dated 25.11.1992 which was acted upon at that point of time and accordingly, by Exhibit P7 he was directed to produce the S.S.L.C book. The delay in production of S.S.L.C book is due to the fact that the same was produced before the Land Board.
While admitting the writ petition, on 07.11.2007, this Court passed the following interim order:
...I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a strong prima facie case for correction of his date of birth in the service records. In the above circumstances the petitioner shall be allowed to continue in service in accordance with the date of birth now claimed by the petitioner subject to further orders in the writ petition.
Accordingly, he continued in service. On 01.04.2009 when the matter came up for hearing, noticing that the petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2009 based on the revised date of birth, the interim order dated 07.11.2007 was vacated.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of the fact that the petitioner continued in service, the extended period of service has to be reckoned for computation of service benefits. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that the rejection of the application as per Exhibit P10 is unsustainable, as his application was filed within time. The application was forwarded by the authorities of the college also.
Going by G.O.(P) No. 45/91/P&ARD dated 30.12.1991, one year from the date of the order has been allowed provided the applicant submit the application beyond two years preceding the retirement, reckoned with reference to the date of birth as recorded in the service book. The application has to be submitted through proper channel. Going by the date of birth entered originally, there cannot be any doubt that the application for the correction of entry in the service records as per Exhibit P5 was submitted prior to two years of the date of attaining superannuation, as per the original entry as well as within one year time allowed by the above Government Order.
In P. Sankaran Vs. The State of Kerala, , this Court was pleased to hold that "...Once such an application is made, it is a matter of proof before the authority to accept the evidence adduced before him.... There is no requirement that these document must be produced along with the application". It was held thus in paragraph 4:
An individual can have only one date of birth. S.S.L.C Book, Birth Register, etc. are all forms of evidence regarding date of birth. The enquiry should be what is that one date of birth attributable to any particular individual. This question as to what exactly is the date of birth of the individual will have to be proved before the authority. The application for that purpose should necessarily precede the proof. The application should be made two years before the date of retirement based on the date of birth originally entered in the service records. Once such an application is made, it is a matter of proof before the authority to accept the evidence adduced before him. In this case, the application has been made well before two years prior to retirement. The evidence has been adduced, viz. the S.S.L.C Book as corrected. Instead of S.S.L.C Book in some cases the evidence may take the form of horoscope, Birth Register etc. There is no requirement that these document must be produced along with the application.
The said reasoning will apply to the facts of this case also. The application Exhibit P5 was submitted within the time allowed obviously.
The respondents have not filed any counter affidavit in the writ petition. Herein it is clear from the documents produced that the original entry has been allowed to be corrected as per Exhibits P1 and P2.
In the light of the above, Exhibit P10 cannot be sustained and the same is quashed. The first respondent will treat Exhibit P5 application filed by the petitioner as within time and appropriate orders will be passed allowing correction of date of birth in the service book of the petitioner as per the corrected entry in the S.S.L.C book, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The second respondent will thereafter process the application for pensionary benefits and due benefits will be granted in accordance with the final order passed by the Government within a further period of two months and after reckoning the service rendered pursuant to the interim order passed in this writ petition.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.