L NICHOLAS Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD NILGIRIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiff, an employee under the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Nilgiris System, Ootacamund/defendant who had approached the Court for change of his date of birth from 1. 7. 1947 to 4. 8. 1950 on the basis of birth certificate (Ex A3) had filed the suit after lapse of five years from the joining the service, is the appellant herein.

(2.) THE short facts of the averments in the plaint relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal sans irrelevant particulars are as follows: The plaintiff has joined as a Helper on temporary basis in the services of the defendant on 16. 12. 1969 and continued till 1. 5. 1974 when he was confirmed as a permanent employee. While his service was confirmed, the defendant has directed the plaintiff to produce the birth certificate. As the plaintiff was in anxiety as he was confirmed as a permanent employee, he could not ascertain and obtain the records regarding his date of birth immediately and as such at the directions of the defendant, the plaintiff was examined by one Dr. C. K. Theerthagiri, District Medical Officer, Nilgiris and the said doctor had issued an age certificate assessing the age of the plaintiff around 26 years and basing on the age certificate issued by the Doctor, the defendant had entered in the service register , the date of birth of the plaintiff as 1. 7. 1947 and the plaintiff continued the services with the defendant as Wireman and at present the plaintiff has been working at Ootacamund Town Central. In or about 1986, when the defendant had published a seniority list, he came to know that his date of birth has been registered in the service records as 1. 7. 1947 and immediately thereafter he had enquired with his parents and he came to understand that his actual date of birth is 4. 8. 1950 and not 1. 7. 1947 as registered in the service records with the defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff has been corresponding with the defendant for all these years by producing all the relevant records to substantiate his correct date of birth as 4. 8. 1950 but however the defendant has been postponing the issue until 6. 6. 1995 when under the communication dated 6. 6. 1995 the defendant had issued a reply that the plaintiff is not entitled to rectify the mistake if any in the date of birth as he has not applied within five years from the date of his joining the services and as such refused to entertain any correspondence in that regard. The plaintiff has obtained the original birth certificate issued by the Commissioner, Ootacamund Municipality as 4. 8. 1950. The plaintiff had studied Foundation Course through Correspondence at Madurai Kamaraj University (which is equal to old S. S. L. C) and in the transfer certificate issued by the said Madurai Kamaraj University, the date of birth of the plaintiff has again been confirmed as 4. 8. 1950. The plaintiff has also obtained a certificate of Baptism from the Holy Trinity Church, Ootacamund wherein it has been confirmed that the plaintiff was baptised on 17. 9. 1950 in which the date of birth of the plaintiff has again been certified as 4. 8. 1950. The family of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is the seventh out of eight children and the plaintiff is also producing the original birth certificate of his elder sister Ms. Annie whose date of birth is 5. 6. 1947 and as such the plaintiff could not have born in 1947 and his correct date of birth is 4. 8. 1950 as certified in the birth certificate, in the transfer certificate issued by the Madurai Kamaraj University and the certificate of Baptism issued by the Holy Trinity Church, Ootacamund. All attempts made by the plaintiff to the defendant for correcting his date of birth from 1. 7. 1947 to 4. 8. 1950 ends futile. Hence the plaintiff has no other alternative but to file the suit for a declaration, declaring the date of birth of the plaintiff as 4. 8. 1950 and as a consequential relief to direct the defendant to enter the correct date of birth of the plaintiff as 4. 8. 1950 in the service records maintained by the defendant. Hence the suit.

(3.) THE defendant in his written statement would contend that the plaintiff was appointed as regular helper in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and he joined as Helper on 1. 5. 1974. At the time of his joining, he was asked to produce the date of birth to enable the Board to prepare the service register of the plaintiff. The plaintiff produced a certificate issued by the then District Medical Officer Dr. C. K. Theerthakiri in which the date of birth of the plaintiff was mentioned as 1. 7. 1947. As per the regulation of the service Rules, the date of birth given by the plaintiff was recorded in the first page of his service register. Acknowledging in the entries of date of birth is correct, the plaintiff has signed and affixed his thumb impression on the service register standing on the name of the plaintiff. As per the standing order applicable to a workman other than clerical employee NO. 36 (iii), it has been stipulated that after a person has entered service under the Board as application to alter the date of birth as entered in the records of the Board shall be entertained only if such application is made within five years of such entry into service. But the plaintiff had submitted his application requesting to alter his date of birth as 4. 8. 1950 instead of 1. 7. 1947 only on 16. 8. 1994, after a lapse of more than 20 years from his date of joining i. e. , on 1. 5. 1974 which cannot be considered as per the above said standing order of the Board. The inability of the Board was informed to the plaintiff through the proceedings in Memo No. 045335/ep//gp/2-c/2-fl;l/bghj vz;/218-95 ehs; 6/6/95. The plaintiff is an Indian Christian. If at all the Baptism is done to him as early as 17. 9. 1950 and his date of birth is recorded in the Baptism as 4. 8. 1950 he could have given the said certificate during the time of joining in service. Further, the plaintiff states that his sister Ms. Annie was born in 5. 6. 1947. But in support of this fact, the plaintiff had concealed all these facts before joining into service which itself shows that he is trying to get unlawful gain from the department. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.