C.T. ANNAMALAI Vs. TAMIL NADU CEMENTS CORPORATION LTD., ALANGULAM REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER AND TAMIL NADU CEMENTS CORPORATION, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI, BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The question in this writ petition relates o the date of birth of the present writ petitioner. At the time when the petitioner entered into service on 8.3.1972, his age had been indicated in the column in the register maintained by the employer as 27. Subsequently the date of birth has been corrected as 15.5.44 and the date of retirement has been corrected as 14.05.2002. It is not disputed that the petitioner had signed a bio -data wherein it was indicated that the date of birth is 15.5.44. The petitioner states that without fully understanding the contents of such bio -data he had singed the same, but his correct date of birth is 15.5.45 and in support of his said contention the petitioner has produced copies of the driving licence, certificate of service in Military, and Identity card. The petitioner claims that he came to know about the altered date of birth only in the year 1995. He made a representation dated 22.2.99. After such representation was made, there has been no further enquiry by the employer and he has filed the writ petition in 1999. However, basing upon the corrected entry of dated of birth as 15.5.44, the petitioner was given retirement with effect from May 2002.

(2.) IN the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioner himself had filed representation in 1993 and reply had been given by the employer in 1993 itself stating that that date of birth is 15.5.44 and not 15.5.45 as claimed by the petitioner.

(3.) IT appears that a representation was given by the petitioner, in 1993 according to the employer and in 1999 according to the petitioner. However, the fact remains that there has been no formal enquiry by the respondent after the representation was made regarding the the date of birth. When the petitioner had raised a dispute with regard to his date of birth and it was expected that the employer should dispose of the matter by giving an opportunity and they should not have come to an unilateral conclusion. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice I direct that the employer should hold an enquiry relating to the date of birth of the petitioner and decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Since the petitioner was already retired, it is necessary that such enquiry should be held as expeditiously as possible and the matter should be heard within a period of two months from today. For facilitating early disposal, I direct that the petitioner should appear before the General Manager of the respondent on 15th of July 2002. On which date the respondent may enquire into the matter or fix any convenient date for holding enquiry. It is open to the petitioner to produce all relevant materials in support of his contention. It is also made clear that no opinion is expressed regarding the correctness or otherwise of the date of birth and the matter is left to the General Manager of the respondent to decide. If the date of birth as contended by the petitioner is accepted, the petitioner should be given re -employment and continue to be in service till the subsequent date of retirement. On the other hand, if the date of birth as claimed by the management is accepted,. no further action is called for on behalf of the management and only the result should be intimated to the petitioner.