SIVAKALAI MUTHU Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE primary issue relates to the question of alteration of date of birth of a person in Government employment. THE petitioner entered into the Government service on 17.6.1963. At that time, his date of birth was shown as 12.9.1939 in the service records. Subsequently, the petitioner filed O.S.No.313 of 1992 before the learned District Munsif, Kulithalai, for declaration that his correct date of birth is 29.7.1941 and consequently, for alteration in the service register indicating such correct date of birth. In the said suit, the State Government as well as the Deputy District Educational Officer, Karur, were impleaded as defendants. THE civil Court accepted the contention of the petitioner and decreed the suit on 26.11.1993. As is the wont in many such matters, the proposal for filing appeal was initiated much after the disposal of the suit and ultimately, the appeal was filed with delay of 605 days. THE I Appellate Court, Kulithalai, predictably did not condone the delay and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed on 11.3.1996 on the ground of limitation. At that stage, the then Special Government Pleader opined that no further appeal need be filed. Armed with the decree of the civil Court, the petitioner filed O.A.No.7500 of 1997 with a prayer for continuance in service by treating the date of birth as 29.7.1941 as per the decree of the civil Court. THE Tribunal, by reasoned order dated 30.9.1997, which was also the normal date of superannuation as per the original entry in the service register, observed that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to deal with such matters and therefore, the decree of the civil Court was a nullity and not binding and accordingly, the Original Application was dismissed.

(3.) IN the above background of material facts, the contentions raised by the petitioner are to the following effect:- 1) IN view of the decree of the civil Court, which became final having not been challenged, the principle of res judi cata is applicable and the Government is bound to act upon such decree of the civil Court, as the Government was a party to such proceeding; 2) Having extended the services of the petitioner, the Government had no jurisdiction to recall such order and that too, without giving an opportunity of hearing; and 3) Since the petitioner had entered into service before the introduction of Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State and Service Rules, the period of limitation of five years, as contemplated under Rule 49 is not applicable.