RAMAKRISHNAN T N Vs. BANK OF INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has hailed from Kerala State. He has his early education at the Government Lower Secondary School, Nadavaramba, Trichur District, Kerala State. He had his high school education from the Government Boys' High School, Irinjalakuda, Trichur District, Kerala State during the years 1946 to 1949. He passed his Metriculation Examination that was conducted in April 1949. Trichur District was forming part of the Princely State of Cochin. Secondary School Leaving Certificate bearing Serial No. 46844 was issued by the Director of Public Instruction, Trichur. The 1st page of the SSLC certificate was prepared in the school and in so far as his date of birth is concerned, the entries were made by the Headmaster of the institution in his own hand while the rest of the information against the other columns was recorded by the office staff of the said school. Against column-4 viz., "Date of Birth (to be written in words also)", "8-6-1108, Eighth Makaram, Eleven Hundred and Eight" is endorsed by the Headmaster of the said school. This was signed by the Headmaster on 29-02-1123 which is also in Malayalam Era. Thus, it is clear that his date of birth was entered in Malayalam Era and not in Christian Era. The Transfer Certificate which was issued to him also contains the same i.e., 8-06-1108. He joined the service of the Bank on 1-03-1951. In the year 1969, the Bank of India was one of those Nationalized by the Government of India and thus came to be a Public Sector Undertaking. There was no fixed pattern of recruitment or procedure at the time of his appointment. However, he has absolutely no idea as to how his date of birth came to be recorded as 21-01-1932. Normal age of superannuation was sixty years under Private sector and as a result, he was sought to be continued and retained in service till he attained the age of sixty years. On the basis of the alleged date of birth viz., 21-01-1932, attempts were made for his superannuation retirement at the end of January 1992. When he realised that there is some mistake in this regard, he looked up the old Malayalam Almanac for the year 1108 and when he converted 8th Makaram 1108 into Christian Era, it came to 21-01-1933, but not 21-01-1932, and then he realised that a mistake is crept in the records. He submitted an application to the 2nd respondent along with the photo stat copy of page 10 of Malayalam Almanac for the year 1108 to rectify the mistake, but the same was rejected. 8th Makaram 1108 of Malayalam Era could only correspond to 21-01-1933. Despite his representation to the Chairman and Managing Director, so far no orders are passed. Hence, this writ petition is filed seeking for a direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents-1 and 2 in refusing to correct the clerical error with reference to the date of birth of the petitioner in his Service Records maintained by the respondent- Bank as 21-01-1933 instead of 21-01-1932 as arbitrary and illegal and to direct the respondents to correct the error by duly recording the date of birth as 21-01-1993 and accord all consequential benefits.

(2.) In the counter filed by the respondents, it is contended that the petitioner applied on 28-02-1951 for appointment in the 1st respondent Bank and in his application form, in his own handwriting, he mentioned his date of birth as 20th January 1932. He was appointed as a temporary typist with effect from 1-03-1951 and since then, he has been in the service of the Bank and was serving as Deputy Zonal Manager at the time of filing of the writ petition. The petitioner was intimated that he would retire on 31-01-1992 after attaining the age of superannuation. On 8th October, 1991, the petitioner addressed a letter to the General Manager, requesting to treat his date of birth as 21-01-1933. He enclosed a photo copy of his SSLC Certificate page 1, in which his date of birth was mentioned as 8th Makaram 1108, which according to him, is equivalent to 21-01-1933. The Bank rejected his request on the ground that the date of birth was mentioned as 20-01-1932 in his application. Reliance was also placed on the Indian Bank Association Guidelines that the date of birth furnished by the employee at the time of his appointment and accepted and entered in the records, cannot be changed subsequently. The allegation that the petitioner has absolutely no idea as to how his date of birth came to be recorded as 21-01-1932, is patently incorrect. Till 8th October, 1991 when he was on the verge of retirement and had been so intimated by the Management, he never claimed mat his date of birth was wrongly recorded. The circumstances, under which he discovered the mistake, are also not clearly indicated. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has mentioned his date of birth in Malayalam Era at any time. The question as to whether the petitioner has completed the age of 60 years, is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be conveniently adjudicated in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petiitoner is estopped by conduct and representation from raising the present plea. If the petiitoner is continued in service by way of interim order, the 1st respondent-Bank will be adversely affected. As such, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The controversy that arises for consideration is as to whether the furnishing of corresponding Christian Era of 8-06-1108 (Malayalam Era), basing on the school records, as 21-01-1932 instead 1933, is a recognized bona fide mistake or not.