G S MANI Vs. HEALTH OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner was working as a driver under the Corporation of Chennai/second respondent. It seems that at the time of his joining service no document had been produced by the petitioner himself regarding his date of birth but on the basis of assessment made by the Health Officer, the date of birth was initially indicated to be 1.7.1942. Subsequently, at some point of time such date of birth was corrected by the Corporation to 1.7.1941 and an endorsement of the Health Officer was obtained. Petitioner in the writ petition has submitted that the erroneous entry in the service register regarding date of birth came to his notice in February 1998 and soon thereafter he filed application on 2.3.1998 contending that his correct date of birth is 3.5.1943. In support of such application, the petitioner filed the certificate from the School as well as the birth certificate issued by the second respondent itself. However, such application was rejected solely on the ground that application for correction of date of birth should be made within a period of five years from the date of entry into service and such application was barred by time. The memo dated 4.9.1998 is to the following effect:- "It is informed that as per the Rule 49 of the State and Subordinate Service any request for alteration of date of birth is made after expiry of five years service cannot be entertained. Hence, the request of Thiru G.S.Mani is rejected"

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that Rule-49 upon which reliance has been placed by the respondents, has been amended in the year 1992 and 1996 and without considering the effect of such amendment, the application had been mechanically rejected on the ground of limitation. The first amendment is dated 15.12.1992 as per G.O.Ms.No.395 Personal and Administrative Reforms (Personnel.S) Department. The amendment was to the following effect:-