S JANE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A distinguished Prime Minister of England while addressing the members in British Civil Service remarked:

(2.) The influx of writ petitions seeking similar reliefs, is indicative of the faith of the citizen, and of the civil servants, of this country, in obtaining redressal of their grievances, when facts justify the same. This writ petition, by a person who served the State for over a quarter of a century, and who was forced to retire on 31-12-1981 while functioning as an Under Secretary, is one such. And she is approaching the court for the second time. Earlier, she moved O.P. 6660 of 1981, which was disposed of by Bhat, J. on 15-3-1982. The findings and directions contained in the judgment in that case (produced in this case as Ext. P5) make it unnecessary for me to refer exhaustively to all the facts, in view of the narrowing down of the area of controversy by that judgment.

(3.) The bare facts, however, maybe recapitulated. According to the petitioner, she was born on 2-7-1105 ME. which corresponds to 13-2-1930AD. She lost her father in early infancy. Snehappu, was to her the mother, the father and the guardian. It is stated that the mother was illiterate. Adventitious aid was sought to take the girl to the school. In the school records, her date of birth was, (according to the petitioner wrongly) shown as 20-4-1102-a disadvantageous difference of three years. It is not as though she realised the mistake only on the eve of her retirement. She detected it way back in 1968. She averred and that averment was not denied by the Government that a representation for correction of her date of birth had been filed before the Government in December, 1968. An application made by her to get a certified extract from the Registrar of Births and Deaths was initially unsuccessful, the Municipal Authorities of Neyyattinkara pleading helplessness to trace the relative records. Her perseverance was, however, rewarded, when at last she obtained the certificate of the Municipality on 6-8-1981, produced in the Original Petition as Ext. P1. A renewed representation was made on 17-8-1981 before the Government. The merits of the representation were, however, not gone into. According to the Government, it was belated: within the prohibited two year period prior to retirement. The representation was rejected by proceedings dated 4-10-1981 (Ext. P4). This forced the petitioner to approach this Court. The writ petition referred to earlier, OP. 6660 of 1981, was filed under the above circumstances.