M ARIVALAGAN Vs. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ELIPE DHARMA RAO Challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, dated 13.09.2011, made in O.A.No.422 of 2010, dismissing the original application, which was filed by the petitioner herein against the order, dated 10.03.2010, passed by the second respondent refusing the claim made by the petitioner for alteration of his date of birth, the present writ petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to reinstate the petitioner back into the service by duly correcting his date of birth as mentioned in the birth certificate issued by the competent Revenue Authority with all attendant service benefits.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he was engaged as a Piece Rate Labourer by the Railways in the year 1979 and continued the said post till 1988 intermittently. IT is the grievance of the petitioner that when the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to treat the petitioner and other similarly situated employees as temporary railway employees was not implemented by the Railway Administration, they had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, and on judicial intervention, the Railway Administration engaged the petitioner as a Substitute Traffic Hamal against a Group-D vacancy in the Traffic Department in the pay scale of Rs.2550-3500/-, as per order dated 09.09.2003.

(3.) THE Tribunal, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the original application by holding that the request made by the employee for alteration of date of birth as recorded in his service record/register should not be considered, far less allowed, at the fag-end of his service career. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.