FATHIMA BI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is by Fathirna Bi, a Persian Moulvi in the Junior College , Tumkur. She joined servicer under the State in the yepr 1951 and gave her date of birth as 6.8.1927. It was only in or about the year 1962 that she realised that her date of birth had been wrongly entered in the service register. Immediately thereafter she made an application to the concerned authorities to correct the date of birth in the service register. She was referred on such application to move the Civil Court. Accordingly, she approached the Civil Court for a declaration of her age. The prayer in that suit is said to be that she was born in the year 1934 and not in the, year 1927. While that suit was pending disposal, the Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force. Under Sec.4 of the Act thei age of an employee in the State Government service cannot be altered except in accordance with Sec. 5 of the Act. Sec. 5 of the Act provides for altering the age in accordance with the procedure laid down, in Sec. 3 of the Act. It provides that the application should be made within three years from tthe date of the age having been accepted and recorded by the, government in the service register or within one year from the date the Act came into force.

(2.) Subsequent to thei coming into force of the Act the petitioner has moved, the government to correct her age as evidenced by the documents and has been refused by the endorsement stating that she is permitted to retire with effect from 31.8.1982 as there was no commnication from the concerned authority as to change of her date of birth to 1.8.1934. In accordance with that memo, she was called upon to hand over charge and relieve herself of her duties as the Persian Moulvi of the Junior College in which she was working. She has approached this Court for relief inter alia contending that she was not aware of the coming into force of the Act and that the Civil Court had not decided her age and in that position, she did not make an, application within one year from the commencement of the Act, and the application made in 1962 ought to have been considered by the Government as if it was made when the Act came into force and given her the necessary relief in accordance with Sees. 3 and 5 of the Act.

(3.) This argument is difficult to accede to. There was no application pending on the date the Act came into force which the government was required to dispose of as her application of 1962 had been disposed of referring her to the Civil Court. Admittedly, as no application was made since the coming into force of the Act, then any fresh application after the lapse of one year is barred by the statute. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention urged by the petitioner. The petition is therefore rejected.