GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU Vs. S K SUBBIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu challenging the judgment and order dated 25. 07. 2007 passed by a learned Judge of the writ court whereby the learned Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition.

(2.) FROM the order, which was passed by the learned Judge, it appears that the learned Judge recorded certain facts relating to the service career of the writ petitioner to the extent that the writ petitioner entered service in 1967 and he sent a representation on 13. 03. 2002 to change his date of birth from 6. 4. 1947 to 5. 12. 1950, which was rejected solely on the ground that the representation of the writ petitioner was made much beyond the period of five years from his entry in service. The learned Judge noted that the counsel for the writ petitioner relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Government of Tamil Nadu v. S. Marimuthu and another reported in 2003 (2) CTC 103. By the said judgment, the learned Judges of the Division Bench came to a finding that there is no question of limitation applicable in the case of one seeking for alteration of date of birth. Therefore, the learned Judges of the Division Bench held that the judgment of the Hon?ble High Court in the Second Appeal granting declaration regarding the date of birth should be binding on the Government and the Government is bound to treat the first respondent in that Second Appeal, as having been born on 16. 7. 1945. The learned Judge of writ court also relied on an unreported Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 24. 6. 2004 made in W. P. No. 16498 of 2004. There also, the learned Judge found that Division Bench took the view that the representation of the employee for alteration of date of birth is to be considered on merits and in accordance with law. The learned Judge also noted that the learned counsel for the writ petitioner relying on the aforesaid two judgments submitted that the writ petitioner entered service in the year 1967 and therefore, the question of limitation of five years cannot be made applicable to his case, and as such the writ petitioner prayed for quashing the order passed by the Government rejecting his prayer for alteration of date of birth. The learned Judge also noted that the Additional Government Pleader, who appeared for the first respondent, the appellant before us, could not dispute the aforesaid legal position arising from the Division Bench judgments, and as such the impugned order was quashed and the Government was directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 13. 3. 2002 on merits within a period of eight weeks and also in accordance with law. With the said finding, the writ petition was allowed.

(3.) CHALLENGING the said finding, the learned Government Pleader submits that admittedly in this case the request for alteration of date of birth was made by the petitioner almost 35 years after the writ petitioner?s entry into service, inasmuch as the writ petitioner entered the service in 1967 and the representation for alteration of date of birth was filed by the writ petitioner/respondent on 13. 3. 2002, and such belated application for alteration of date of birth is not to be entertained.