The Government of Tamil Nadu vs S.K. Subbiah

A.K. Ganguly, C.J.—This appeal has been filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu challenging the judgment and order dated 25.07.2007

passed by a learned Judge of the writ court whereby the learned Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition.

From the order, which was passed by the learned Judge, it appears that the learned Judge recorded certain facts relating to the service career of

the writ Petitioner to the extent that the writ Petitioner entered service in 1967 and he sent a representation on 13.03.2002 to change his date of

birth from 6.4.1947 to 5.12.1950, which was rejected solely on the ground that the representation of the writ Petitioner was made much beyond

the period of five years from his entry in service. The learned Judge noted that the counsel for the writ Petitioner relied on the judgment of the

Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Government of Tamil Nadu v. S. Marimuthu and Anr. reported in 2003 (2) CTC 103. By the

said judgment, the learned Judges of the Division Bench came to a finding that there is no question of limitation applicable in the case of one

seeking for alteration of date of birth. Therefore, the learned Judges of the Division Bench held that the judgment of the Hon''ble High Court in the

Second Appeal granting declaration regarding the date of birth should be binding on the Government and the Government is bound to treat the first

Respondent in that Second Appeal, as having been born on 16.7.1945. The learned Judge of writ court also relied on an unreported Division

Bench judgment of this Court dated 24.6.2004 made in W.P. No. 16498 of 2004. There also, the learned Judge found that Division Bench took

the view that the representation of the employee for alteration of date of birth is to be considered on merits and in accordance with law. The

learned Judge also noted that the learned Counsel for the writ Petitioner relying on the aforesaid two judgments submitted that the writ Petitioner

entered service in the year 1967 and therefore, the question of limitation of five years cannot be made applicable to his case, and as such the writ

Petitioner prayed for quashing the order passed by the Government rejecting his prayer for alteration of date of birth. The learned Judge also noted

that the Additional Government Pleader, who appeared for the first Respondent, the Appellant before us, could not dispute the aforesaid legal

position arising from the Division Bench judgments, and as such the impugned order was quashed and the Government was directed to consider

the representation of the Petitioner dated 13.3.2002 on merits within a period of eight weeks and also in accordance with law. With the said

finding, the writ petition was allowed.

Challenging the said finding, the learned Government Pleader submits that admittedly in this case the request for alteration of date of birth was

made by the Petitioner almost 35 years after the writ Petitioner''s entry into service, inasmuch as the writ Petitioner entered the service in 1967 and

the representation for alteration of date of birth was filed by the writ Petitioner/Respondent on 13.3.2002, and such belated application for

alteration of date of birth is not to be entertained.

Learned Government Pleader for the Appellants first tried to distinguish the judgments on which reliance was placed by the learned Judge of the

writ court. He referred to the first judgment on which reliance has been placed by the learned Judge of the writ court, and it was rendered between

the Government of Tamil Nadu v. S. Marimuthu and Anr. reported in 2003(2) CTC 103. this Court finds that the said judgment proceeded on the

basis of a determination made by this High Court in a second appeal. The said judgment in the second appeal was delivered by this Court on 16th

July, 1983 in which the High Court gave a declaration to the effect that the date of birth of the employee is 16.07.1945. To the said second appeal

the Government of Tamil Nadu, the Director of Government Examinations, the Director of School Education and the District Revenue Officer,

South Arcot were parties and were bound by the judgment. The Petitioner''s prayer for change of date of birth was made on the basis of the said

judgment. But, as the same was not favourably considered by the State Government the employee filed an original application before the State

Administrative Tribunal and the same was allowed by the Tribunal by holding that once a question was concluded between the parties, it is

incumbent upon the government to treat the date of birth as per the declaration given by the High Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the

government moved the High Court pointing out that the claim for alteration of date of birth was made by the employee in the year 1978, which was

about 10 years after entering service, whereas under the language of the rule the period of limitation within which such a request for change of date

of birth can be made was five years. The Division Bench did not accept the said contention primarily because of the reason that the matter stands

concluded by the judgment in the second appeal delivered by this Court.

In this connection certain Government Orders on the right of an employee to seek alteration in the date of birth may be considered. G.O. Ms.

No. 395, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.S) Department, dated 15.12.1992 brought about an amendment in Rule 49(c) of the

General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules to the following effect:

The following Notification will be published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette:

NOTLFICATION

In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby makes the

following amendment to the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services (Part II in Volume I of the Tamil Nadu Services

Manual, 1987).

The amendment hereby made shall come into force on the 15th December 1992.

AMENDMENT In the said Rules, in Rule 49, in Sub-rule (c) the following proviso shall be added, namely:

Provided that the application for alteration of date of birth of a person who entered into service prior to the 24th January 1961 shall be submitted

atleast one year before the date of his retirement reckoned with reference to the official records.

In the case, which was decided in the aforesaid Division Bench judgment, the request for amendment was filed by the employee in 1978.

However, the aforesaid amendment by proviso was introduced in 15.12.1992 and the said proviso was omitted by G.O. Ms. No. 388, P&AR

(Per.S), dated 27.12.1995 w.e.f. 03.08.1994.

The Respondent in the instant case made his request for alteration in date of birth on 13.03.2002 so by that time the said proviso has been

deleted. Therefore, the benefit of the aforesaid proviso cannot be availed of by the Respondent. In our view, the learned Government Pleader for

the Appellants was right in the aforesaid contention. Once a proviso is added to the rule modifying the period of limitation then in order to get the

benefit of the said modification, the application for alteration must be made as long as the proviso exists. Once the proviso has been omitted as was

done in this case in the year 1995, the application made in 2002 cannot get the benefit of that proviso. Therefore, the said judgment in the case of

S. Marimuthu (supra) is of no assistance to the case of the Respondent herein.

The second judgment, on which the learned Judge of the writ court relied, virtually relied on the first judgment, and the second judgment did not

decide anything, which is clear from paragraph-4 of the second judgment, and the second judgment merely directed that the representation of the

Petitioner is to be decided by the appropriate authority in accordance with law. Therefore, the aforesaid two judgments actually do not support the

case of the Petitioner.

In S. Marimuthu (supra) the learned Judges of the Division Bench referred to another G.O. namely., G.O. Ms. No. 66 dated 02.02.1996. The

said G.O. brings about an amendment to the G.O. Ms. No. 395 dated 15.12.1992, where the last line says that the amendment shall come into

effect from 24.01.1961. By G.O. Ms. No. 66, instead of 24.01.1961, 19.08.1970 has been substituted. As a result of this substitution the

Respondent''s case is not altered at all as much as the Respondent entered into service prior to 1970 but made the request for alteration in 2002.

The said amendment was made to the omitted proviso and it does not in any way affect the case of the Respondent.

The learned Government Pleader for the Appellants showed before the Court the extracts from the service record of the Respondent to the

effect that his date of birth has been recorded as 06.04.1947 both in words and in figures. Therefore, on the date when the Respondent made the

application for correction i.e., 13.03.2002 the Respondent''s contention was that wrong date of birth was entered in the school records by his

father, and after the death of his father he came to know of his correct date of birth. Therefore, he relied on the Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State

and Subordinate Service Rules for alteration of his date of birth. After the Respondent''s prayer for request for alteration of date of birth was

rejected on 17.04.2002 on the ground that he did not submit the application within 5 years of entry in to the service, the Respondent made further

application on 01.01.2004, which was virtually in the nature of mercy petition, as appears from page 43 of the additional typed set. Therefore, on

the date the Respondent applied for alteration of date of birth i.e., 13.03.2002, the relevant rule, was Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State and

Subordinate Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as the ''said Rules'') framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 49(b) and (c) of

the said Rules, which are relevant for our consideration, are set out below:

49(b) After a person has entered service, an application to alter the date of his birth as entered in the official records shall be entertained only if

such an application is made within five years of such entry into service. Such an application shall be made to the authority competent to make an

appointment to the post held by the applicant at the time of his application and shall be disposed of in accordance with the procedure laid down in

Sub-rule (a).

49(c) Any application received after five years after entry into service or any application, which is not supported by entries in Secondary School

Leaving Certificate, School, College or University records, birth extract from records of local bodies or military discharge certificates, shall be

summarily rejected.

In view of the rule, as it stands in the year 2002, the finding of the learned Judge of the writ court on the basis of the aforesaid two judgments is

not sustainable.

In this case, the notice of retirement in respect of the Respondent was issued on 29.04.2005, and an application for alteration of date of birth

was made virtually at the fag end of the Respondent''s service namely, 3 years before his retirement, and after 35 years of entering service in 1967.

It may be noted that on the basis of the service record which was opened in 1967, the Respondent''s name was included in the panel for

promotion to the post of assistant in 1974. Thereafter, on the basis of the said record the Respondent was promoted to the post of superintendent

in 1998.

After the order of the learned single Judge, the Appellant filed a contempt petition on 18.11.2007 inter alia on the ground that the order of the

learned single Judge has not been carried out. Thereafter, on 13.12.2007 in terms of the order of the learned single Judge, the case of the

Respondent for alteration was considered and rejected, inter alia on the ground that the application for alteration of date of birth was not submitted

within 5 years of entry in government service as required under Rule 49(b) and 49(c), which have been set out herein above.

Thereafter, a further reasoned order has been passed rejecting the Respondent''s representation for alteration of date of birth by an order

dated 7th August, 2008, and the same has been included at page 58 of the additional typed set.

The learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that in view of the two Division Bench judgments of this Court, discussed herein above, this

Division Bench could not take a contrary view. We have already discussed the said two judgments. In those two judgments, the points, which are

at issue, do not fall for consideration in this case. In the facts of this case, the application of the Respondent for alteration of date of birth was made

35 years after entering service and the said application for alteration has to be considered under the relevant rule framed under Article 309 of the

Constitution. Relevant portion of the Rules have been quoted above. The said rule is clear that beyond 5 years from the date of entry in service no

request for alteration can be considered. Therefore, the request made after 32 years by the Respondent was rejected by the Appellants. this

Court, does not find any error in the action of the Appellants.

In this connection, certain judgments have been cited at the Bar. The first of such judgment is the one rendered in State of T.N. Vs. T.V.

Venugopalan, , wherein Rule 49 of the said Rules came up for consideration. The Hon''ble Supreme Court held that the object of such rule is that

the government employee, if he has any grievance in respect of any error of entry of date of birth, should avail of the opportunity, at the earliest, to

have it corrected. The object of such rule is also that correction of the date of birth beyond a reasonable time should not be permitted. It is also

said that permission to reopen an accepted date of birth of an employee shortly before the superannuation of the government employee, would be

an impetus to provide fabricated record (See paragraph 4 at page 305 of the report). After saying so, the learned Judges, after considering several

judgments, observed in paragraph 7 at page 307 of the report that the employee loses his right to make an application for correction of his date of

birth after the expiry of 5 years from entering service.

The same view has been reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Government of Tamil Nadu v. J. Ramasamy and Anr.

2002 (2) CTC 65 and the contrary view of the tribunal in that case was over ruled.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court has again reiterated the same principle in the case of Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department and others

Vs. R. Kirubakaran, . Considering the said Rules the learned Judges held that such rules must be strictly followed and application for alteration can

only be entertained if such an application is made within 5 years of entering service.

The same principle has been again reiterated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat and Others Vs. Vali Mohmed

Dosabhai Sindhi, . In paragraph 10 of the said judgment the learned Judges reiterated the principle referred to in the case of State of Assam and

Another Vs. Daksha Prasad Deka and Others, and those principles are as follows:

must be in our judgment, be determined on the basis of the service record and not on what the Respondent claimed to be his date of birth, unless

the service record is first corrected consistently with the appropriate procedure.

Also in the case of Chief Medical Officer Vs. Khadeer Khadri, also the learned Judges insisted on following the procedure prescribed in the

rules for correction of date of birth.

Same principle was again reiterated in the case of State of Orissa and Others Vs. Brahamarbar Senapathi, . In that case, similar rules existed in

the State of Orissa and Rule 65 of the Orissa General Financial Rules prescribed that the application for change of date of birth must be made

within five years from entry into government service. The learned Judges upheld the said procedure under the rules, and over ruled the judgment of

the tribunal which committed an error by not following the rule.

In Union of India Vs. C. Rama Swamy and others, the learned Judges followed the same principle in paragraph 25 at page 659 of the report.

In view of the fact that judicial opinion has been so overwhelmingly expressed in favour of not entertaining any prayer for alteration of date of

birth, after the period mentioned in the rule expires, there is no reason for this Court to take a different view. this Court is in respectful agreement

with the views expressed by the Apex Court in so many judgments. The appeal, therefore, is allowed. The judgment of the learned single Judge of

the writ court is set aside. this Court does not find any error in the acts of the Appellants in asking the Respondent to retire from service on the

basis of the order of retirement, indicated above. No order as to costs.