RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR Vs. GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petitioner in O.P.3231 of 1991 is the appellant. He was an employee of the Guruvayoor Devaswom. He was working as Devaswom Inspector. He entered service under the Guruvayoor Devaswom on 1-10-1960. His date of birth as entered in the school records and the service records was 2-8-1932. As per that date, he was to retire on superannuation on completing the age of 55 on 31-8-1987. Four days prior to the said date of retirement, he filed an application before the Devaswom for correcting the date of birth in his service records as 3-2-1935. Devaswom, by its decision dated 26-5-1990 (Resolution 25), decided to reject the petitioner's application for correction of date of birth. He approached this Court for getting the date of birth corrected by moving O.P.3231 of 1991. A learned Single Judge of this Court by judgment dated 22-3-1991 dismissed the Original Petition. Hence this appeal.

(2.) As stated earlier, the original date of birth of the petitioner as recorded in the school registers and the service records was 2-8-1932. He moved the Commissioner for Government Examinations for correcting the date of birth in the school records. That application was rejected by the Commissioner for Government Examinations. He took up the matter in appeal before the Government. Government by G.O.(Rt) 2548/87/G.Edn. dated 26-8-1987 took the view:

(3.) Petitioner entered the service of the Guruvayoor Devaswom on l-10-1960 as Senior Karyasthan. He got his legitimate promotion to the higher cadres and became Devaswom Inspector. He had the opportunity to see his service records many a number of times during his tenure from 1-10-1960 upto 1987. On those occasions he had no case that the date of birth entered in the service records is wrong. He became aware of the alleged error in the date of birth only at the fag end of this official career. In Union of India v. Harnm Singh, JT 1993 (3) SC 711 , Their Lordships of the Supreme Court had to consider the case of a Government servant who sought correction of his date of birth at the fag end of his official career. The short facts of that case are as follows. Respondent therein joined Government service as a Peon on 22-2-1956. At the time of entry into service his service book was prepared and date of birth was recorded as 20-5-1934. Though date of birth of this officer as recorded in the matriculation certificate was 7-4-1938, the entry relating to date of birth in the service records was not altered. On being notified about his date of superannuation as 31-5-92, he made representation in September, 1991 for alteration of his date of birth as 7-4-1938, to bring it in conformity with the entry in the matriculation certificate. This request having been rejected by the department, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal which directed to correct the date of birth as per the entry in the matriculation certificate. While reversing the decision of the Tribunal Their Lordships observed: