A. CHINNASAMY Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE SALEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present review petition has been filed against the order passed by this Court dated 11.09.2017 in W.P.No. 9845 of 2016.

(2.) The writ petitioner joined as a Record Assistant in the Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Enforcement Wing, Salem on 17.11.1982. The petitioner claims that he made a representation to the Commissioner and Special Commissioner to alter his date of birth from 13.04.1958 to 28.05.1960. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioner made a submission that the said application seeking alteration of date of birth dated 27.11.1985 had been forwarded to the higher officials by the Commissioner and the Special Commissioner. However, no action has been taken on the application submitted by the writ petitioner during the year 1985. However, the petitioner was transferred to Revenue Department on 08.05.1990. Once again, the petitioner submitted application on 27.05.1992 seeking alteration of date of birth in service records. However, on 25.02.1993 the said representation submitted by the writ petitioner was rejected. Thus, the writ petitioner filed O.S.No. 458 of 1993 before the District Munsif Court, Athur for a declaration of his date of birth and to alter his date of birth in all his service records. The suit filed by the petitioner was decreed as prayed for in favour of the writ petitioner on 29.03.1996 and declaration as such sought for was granted. The defendants in the Civil Suit preferred A.S.No. 11 of 1998 before the Sub-Court, Athur. However, the First Appeal has also been dismissed. Accordingly on 13.03.1997, the notification was issued in respect of altering the date of birth of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an execution petition in R.E.P.No. 51 of 2008 in O.S.No. 458 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif, Athur. However, the Second Appeal in S.R.No. 85580 of 2010 was dismissed. In the meanwhile, the writ petition in W.P.No. 9485 of 2016 has been filed for a direction to direct the respondents to alter the date of birth of the writ petitioner in all his service records as per the gazetted notification. This Court passed an order on 11.09.2017 stating that the writ petitioner has not submitted an application within the time limit prescribed. The said contention recorded in the order has been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by stating that the writ petitioner had filed an application within the period of five years.

(3.) Now that, in the present review application an additional typed set of papers are filed wherein the representation submitted by the writ petitioner dated 27.11.1985 has been enclosed. The said representation had not been enclosed along with the typed set of papers filed in the original writ petition.