High Court Kerala High Court

M.A. Francis vs State Of Kerala – Represented By on 10 August, 2009

Kerala High Court
M.A. Francis vs State Of Kerala – Represented By on 10 August, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 6758 of 2008(D)


1. M.A. FRANCIS
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER

3. THE COMMISSIONER FOR GOVERNMENT

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.RAGHURAJ

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :10/08/2009

 O R D E R
                             S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
                      ==================
                         W.P(C).No.6758 of 2008
                      ==================
                Dated this the 10th day of August, 2009
                              J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a Deputy Commissioner of Excise. In his SSLC

book, his date of birth is entered as 30.11.1956. According to the

petitioner, he was born on 25.12.1956. On 20.11.1991, the petitioner

filed Ext.P1 application seeking correction of his date of birth in the

SSLC book relying on his baptism certificate along with a request for

condonation of delay in filing the application. By Ext.P.2 order dated

20.1.1992, the delay in filing the application for correction of the date

of birth in his SSLC book was condoned by the Government. While so,

the Government passed Ext.P4 order dated 30.12.1991 regulating the

procedure for correction of date of birth recorded in service books of

the Government employees. As per the same, the application for

correction of the date of birth had to be filed either within five years of

entry into service or if that period is already over as on the date of the

Government order, within one year from the date of the Government

order. It was also mentioned therein that the application should be

accompanied by attested copies of appropriate documents as corrected

and that mere correction of date of birth in the school records does not

entitle the employee for consequential correction of date of birth in the

service book and each case would be considered by the Government

on merits and orders passed. The Government order also stipulated

W.P.C.6758/08 2

that the application for condonation of delay for entertainment of

application in relaxation of the condition regarding the time limit shall

be summarily rejected. The petitioner filed a further application,

Ext.P3 dated 11.5.1992, for correction of the date of birth in the SSLC

book. Since there was delay in getting the SSLC book corrected

appropriately and the last date prescribed by Ext.P4 Government order

was fast approaching, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 application dated

1.12.1992 for correction of the date of birth in the service book

unaccompanied by the attested copy of the corrected SSLC book,

which was a requirement as per the Government order. Neither Ext.P3

nor Ext.P5 was attended to by the Commissioner for Government

Examinations or the Government for a long time. By Ext.P6 order

dated 30.6.1997, the Commissioner for Government Examinations

allowed the petitioner’s application for correction of date of birth in the

SSLC book. Thereafter, the petitioner moved for correction of date of

birth in the service records in accordance with the corrected SSLC

book. It met with Exts.P8, P9 and P10 rejection orders. In the

meanwhile, the petitioner came across Ext.P11 judgment and P12

order in respect of another employee, who had filed application for

correction of date of birth in the service book long after the last date

fixed by Ext.P4 order. By Ext.P11 judgment, this Court directed

consideration of his application and, considering his application, by

W.P.C.6758/08 3

Ext.P12 order, the Government allowed such correction. Relying on

Exts.P11 and P12, the petitioner filed W.P.(C).No. 19264/2004

challenging Exts.P8 and P9. In the meanwhile, the revision petition

filed by the petitioner was rejected by Ext.P10 order. The petitioner

challenged the same also in the writ petition. In that writ petition, by

Ext.P13 judgment, this Court quashed Exts.P8, P9 and P10 orders and

directed the Government to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the

light of Ext.P11 judgment and, Ext.P12 order passed by the

Government consequent thereto. However, again by Ext.P14 order the

Government rejected the petitioner’s application for correction of date

of birth on the ground that the same has been filed without complying

with the requirements of Ext.P4 Government order as the application

was not accompanied by attested copy of the corrected SSLC book and

attested copy of the corrected SSLC book was filed long after the last

date stipulated in Ext.P4 Government order was over. The petitioner is

challenging Ext.P14 order in this writ petition.

2. According to the petitioner, delay, if any, cannot be

attributed to the petitioner at all. He would submit that he has done

every thing humanly possible to get the date of birth in his service

book corrected and every application was filed within time. It is only

because of the undue delay of the Commissioner for Government

Examinations in considering the petitioner’s application for correction

W.P.C.6758/08 4

of the SSLC book, that the petitioner could not produce the attested

copy of the corrected SSLC book along with Ext.P5 application dated

1.12.1992. The petitioner should not be denied relief because of the

delay on the part of the Commissioner for Government Examinations is

the submission made by the petitioner. According to him, he had filed

the application for correction of date of birth in the SSLC book prior to

Ext.P4 Government order, on 20.11.1991. At that time, going by the

Government orders in force, he could wait upto two years prior to his

retirement to make the application. It is thereafter, the limitation of

time was prescribed by Ext.P4 Government order. He tried to get the

date of birth in the SSLC book corrected before the time limit

prescribed in the Government order, which did not yield any result.

Therefore, he was forced to file the application for correction of date of

birth in the service records before the time limit prescribed by Ext.P4

Government order expired. Therefore, he filed application on

1.12.1992 without attested copy of the corrected SSLC book, which

was the only thing he could do in the circumstances. The petitioner

would submit that he should not be penalised for the delay caused by

the Commissioner for Government Examinations in processing his

application for correction of date of birth in the SSLC book, which was

the only reason why he could not produce the attested copy of the

corrected SSLC book in time.

W.P.C.6758/08 5

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st

respondent. It is submitted therein that, after Ext.P4 Government

order, for correction of the date of birth in service records, no

application unaccompanied by the prescribed documents could be

entertained. It is submitted that in view of the judgment in W.P.(C).

No. 9619/2005, frowning upon the practice of correcting of date of

birth after the time limit fixed in Ext.P4 Government order, the

Government could not have validly corrected the date of birth of the

petitioner in the service records.

4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

5. I am also of opinion that the request for correction of date

of birth should be dealt with very strictly and should not be allowed, if

the same does not conform to the procedure and time limit prescribed

in Ext.P4 Government order. But the petitioner’s case is different. On

20.11.91, he filed Ext.P1 application for correction of date of birth in

the SSLC book. As per the Government orders applicable then, he

could have waited till two years prior to his date of retirement to make

the application for correction of date of birth of in the service records.

It is thereafter, Ext.P4 Government order dated 30.12.1991 came to

be passed prescribing more strict procedures and limitation for

applying for correction of date of birth in the service records. He got

the delay in filing Ext.P1 application condoned by Ext.P2 dated

W.P.C.6758/08 6

20.1.1992. Even thereafter, he had almost 11 months to file the

application for correction of date of birth in the service records even

going by Ext.P4 Government order, had the Commissioner for

Government Examinations processed his application within a

reasonable time, which the Commissioner for Examinations did not.

Therefore, he was forced to file the application for correction of date of

birth in the service records before the expiry of the period of limitation

prescribed in Ext.P4, on 1.12.1992 sans the attested copy of the

corrected SSLC Book. He did the best what, in the circumstances, by

any Government employee could do. It was purely because of the

undue delay in the Commissioner for Government Examinations

disposing of the application for correction of date of birth in the SSLC

book, he could not produce the attested copy of the corrected SSLC

book within the time stipulated by Ext.P4. I am of opinion that the

petitioner should not be prejudiced because of the delay on the part of

the Commissioner for Government Examinations. That being so, the

Government could not have validly rejected the application only on the

ground of delay, as has been done in Ext.P14. For that reason, Ext.P14

is liable to be quashed. I do so. There would be a direction to the

Government to consider Ext.P5 application of the petitioner, as if he

had filed that application with attested copy of the SSLC book in time,

on merits, and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as

W.P.C.6758/08 7

possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a

certified copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being

heard to the petitioner.

The writ petition is allowed as above.

Sd/-

sdk+                                             S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

          ///True copy///




                                P.A. to Judge

W.P.C.6758/08                   8




W.P.(C). No.6758/2008

                            APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

P1. COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD.20.11.91 BEFORE THE GOVT.

P2. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.20.1.92.

P3. COPY OF THE APPLICATION BEFORE R4.

P4. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.30.12.1991.

P5. COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD.1.12.91 BEFORE R2.

P6. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.30.6.97 BY R4.

P7. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.19.8.97 OF THE DY. COMMISSIONER
OF EXCISE, CENTRAL ZONE.

P8. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.4.2.99 BY THE JOINT EXCISE
COMMISSIONER.

P9. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.30.12.03 BY R1.

P10. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.20.10.05 BY R1.

P11. COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN O.P.NO.18119/97 OF THIS COURT.

P12. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.3.3.2006.

P13. COPY OF THE JDUGMENT DTD.6.12.2000 IN W.P.(C). No.
19264/2004.

P14. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.29.5.07.



Sdk+

             ///True copy///




                                P.A. to Judge

W.P.C.6758/08    9