GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU Vs. D THIRUPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS in O. S. No. 9382 of 1978, on the file of IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras are the Appellants.

(2.) SUIT filed by plaintiff was to declare that the alteration made by the District Police Office, Chengalpattu, in the date of birth of the plaintiff in the Service Register from 1-4-1925 to 1-4-1921, without notice to plaintiff, is irregular, unauthorised, not valid in law and not binding on plaintiff. As a consequence, a further relief is also sought for in the nature of permanent prohibitory injunction from restraining the defendants from retiring the plaintiff from service on the basis of the said illegally altered date of birth. Costs of the suit is also sought to be recovered.

(3.) IT is further averred that as soon as the plaintiff learnt about the unauthorised correction, he submitted a petition requesting the Superintendent of Police, to have the original date of birth restored. Plaintiff also attached his E.S.L.C. Certificate containing the said date of birth as additional evidence. The Superintendent of Police gave a reply on 1962 stating that if his date of birth was taken as 1-4-1925 as per the School Certificate, his age at the time of enlistment will be 16 years and 7 months and that it would be a question of enlistment on false pretenses for which he could be dismissed. Plaintiff, thereupon, gave a reply that he is willing to face the charge as it is not his mistake and he had not suppressed any fact. But the Authorities did not pursue the matter, nor did they give any reply to the plaintiff. IT is further alleged that subsequent petitions were also filed. But all of them were dismissed on the ground that the correction could not be entertained after 22 years of service. He also moved an Application in the year 1966 to the second defendant, which was also rejected. A complaint was given to the Governor in 1972, but the same was also rejected as belated. Again another representation was given to the Governor on 11.2.1972, which was also dismissed in 1976. IT is said that the plaintiff was directed to retire on 30-6-1976, on the basis of the date of birth altered by the Department. He filed a writ petition before this Court for the issue of a writ of mandamus calling upon the defendants to forbear from retiring the plaintiff with effect from 30-6-1976. But the same was dismissed, directing the plaintiff to file a civil suit and, therefore, he has filed the present suit. He also said that since urgent relief is required, he may be exempted from issuing a notice under Section 80, C.P.C.