K RANGANATHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 25.9.2006 made in O.A.No.182 of 2006 and seeks to quash the same and also for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to permit him to work continuously till he attains superannuation ie., 07.5.2011, or in the alternative to pay the allowances and other monetary benefits to him for the period from 04.4.2007 to 07.05.2011.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner, who was working as GDS Packer in the second respondent Division of the Postal Department from 01.9.1966, is that he was born on 07.5.1946 and that at the time of appointment, the same date was given for the record purposes. It is stated that on coming to know of the publication of the seniority list of ED Agent, he made a representation on 07.01.1992 for correction of his date of birth as 07.5.1946 instead of 03.4.1942 but the correction was not carried out and the seniority list was published showing his date of birth as 03.4.1942. THErefore, he made another representation dated 29.3.2005 to the second respondent and the same was rejected by letter dated 28.4.2005 stating that his request for change of date of birth as 07.5.1946 cannot be considered as alteration of date of birth should be applied within five years from the date of his entry into service. It is further stated that a similar request was made by two others persons and their requests were considered and corrections were made with regard to their date of birth. THE main grievance of the petitioner is that since his date of birth was wrongly entered even in the second seniority list, he made another representation dated 18.5.2005 requesting for alteration of his date of birth in the official records but the same was also rejected. THE said order of rejection dated 28.4.2005 was impugned before the Tribunal.

(3.) LEARNED Senior Central Government Standing Counsel representing the Department, reiterating the very same contentions raised in the counter, submitted that in the seniority list as on 31.12.1990 published on 30.3.1991 and another list as on 01.01.1996 published on 12.3.1996, the date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 03.4.1942. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has not made any representation during the year 1992 but only in the year 2005, a representation was received from the petitioner with regard to alteration of date of birth and the same was also rejected by the authorities. Insofar as the reliance made by the petitioner with respect to the similarly placed persons, learned counsel submitted that it was typographical error in the seniority list and hence, correction was made and the same would not amount to alteration of date of birth.