KANNADI SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD Vs. VISWANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ashok M. Cherian for the appellant, Mr. Ramakumar for respondent No. 1 and Mr. P.K. Ravikrishnan, Government Pleader for respondent No. 3.

(2.) The Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P. 15016/97 now reported in Viswanathan v. Secretary to Government ( 1998 (1) KLT 724 ). The appellant Cooperative Bank is the third respondent in the Original Petition which is a cooperative society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act and rules made thereunder. The first respondent C. Viswanathan filed O.P. 15016/97 to call for the records leading up to Ext. P4 and quash the same and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents therein to continue him in service beyond 31.8.1997 until he retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation and for a mandamus directing the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Palakkad to perform the statutory duties in terms of R.197 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules and enter the correct date of birth of the first respondent herein / petitioner in O.P. in the service records. The first respondent is working as a Secretary of the Cooperative Society. He was functioning as such from 1.10.1970. According to the entry in the service book of the first respondent the date of birth was wrongly entered as 5.10.1939 while the actual date of his birth is 3.2.1941 which was found out by him while he had an opportunity to examine the records maintained in the Panchayat office relating to births and deaths. Immediately he made an application for correcting the date of birth of his service records for which the Government had passed an order condoning the delay which order is produced and marked as Ext. P1. Thereafter he submitted an application before the Controller of Examinations who however rejected it. On appeal the Government permitted the correction of date of birth of the first respondent as 3.2.1941 by order, which is produced and marked as Ext. P2. The first respondent, with that order sought correction of date of birth in his service records in the appellant society. He has already produced the corrected date of birth also before the Bank. However the managing committee has refused to make alterations in terms of the corrected S.S.L.C. book in the service records of the first respondent. According to the date now shown in the service records, the first respondent is due to retire on 31.8.1997, while if the correction is accepted he can continue in service for another year and a half. Since the managing committee had refused to make the correction, he made a representation to the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies under Ext. P3. Since there was no response the first respondent filed O. P. 12900 of 1997 in this Court to pass orders in the representation Ext. P3. Accordingly the Joint Registrar has passed an order holding the view that he has no powers at all in the matter. The said order is marked as Ext. P4. The Joint Registrar has informed the first respondent that the resolution cannot be rescinded. The order of the Joint Registrar according to the first respondent clearly discloses patent errors of law and importing materials which are altogether irrelevant to the issue. He filed the Writ Petition to quash Ext. P4 and for other allied reliefs. Along with the Writ Petition, the first respondent filed Exts. P1 to P4 in support of his case.

(3.) The second respondent in the O.P. filed a counter affidavit through Senior Inspector of Cooperative Societies. It is submitted that there is no specific rule in existence to correct the date of birth in the service register of the employee working in the cooperative sector. The Government vide G.O. (P) No. 45/91 / P&ARD dated 30.12.1991 had issued guidelines regarding the correction of date of birth in the service book of government employees. The State Government had issued this order with due regard to the system followed in the case of Central Government employees. The Government had issued the above cited orders with a view to discourage the growing tendency on the part of Government employees to get the date of birth corrected when they are about to retire. In the Government order it has been specifically stated that the application for correction of date of birth in the case of government employee shall be made within five years of one's entry in service and in the case of those who have already crossed the limit, one year time from the date of the order shall be allowed provided they apply beyond the two years preceding retirement reckoned with reference to the date of birth as recorded in the service register. It is submitted that this Court as well as the State Government have discouraged the tendency on the part of the employees to have their date of birth corrected at the fag end of their service. As such it is submitted that for correcting the date of birth of such an employee the principles behind the relevant government order and also the observation of this Court and also of the Supreme Court have to be relied on and while issuing Ext. P4 letter the respondent has relied upon the principles behind the Government order and also the observations of this Court. The action of the first respondent is against the principles and observations as mentioned in the judgment.