IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 5355 of 2010(T)
1. P.V.JOSE, PALAKKAL HOUSE, VALIYAKULAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (H.R.)
... Respondent
2. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :18/02/2010
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 5355 OF 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was an employee under the second respondent. He
retired from service on 31.5.2007, based on the recorded date of birth in
his S.S.L.C. Book as also the date of birth recorded at the time of his entry
in service. The date of birth of the petitioner in his S.S.L.C. Book and as
entered in his service records is 3.5.1947. Contending that his actual date
of birth is 3.5.1949, the petitioner had approached the competent
authorities for getting his date of birth corrected. However, prior to such
correction, he attained the age of superannuation and admittedly retired
from the service of the second respondent on 31.5.2007. The case of the
petitioner is that subsequently his date of birth was corrected by the
competent authority. Earlier, prior to his attaining the age of
superannuation, he had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 7615
of 2007. The said Writ Petition was dismissed as per Ext.P5 judgment.
The matter was taken up in appeal as W.A. No.1885 of 2007. This Court,
while affirming Ext.P5 judgment, disposed of the Writ Petition, as per
W.P.(C) NO. 5355/2010 2
Ext.P6 judgment, observing that it would be open to the petitioner to file a
comprehensive representation before the authorities producing the
corrected date of birth and to seek appropriate decision based on the same.
But, the request of the petitioner was rejected and he again approached this
Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 33509 of 2007. The said Writ Petition was
dismissed as per Ext.P9 judgment. The decisions of this Court in Exts.P5
and P6 were taken into consideration while dismissing the said Writ
Petition and upholding the rejection of the petitioner’s representation made
pursuant to Ext.P6 judgment. In fact, the contentions unsuccessfully raised
by the petitioner in the said Writ Petition are canvassed again in this Writ
Petition. I am of the view that in the light of Ext.P9, merely because the
petitioner has preferred Ext.P10 subsequent to the dismissal of W.P.(C)
No. 33509 of 2007, this Writ Petition cannot be entertained.
In the circumstances, taking into account Exts.P5, P6 and P9, I am of
the view that there is no merit in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is
accordingly dismissed.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
sp/
W.P.(C) NO. 5355/2010 3
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
W.P.(C) NO. 5355/2010
JUDGMENT
18th February, 2010
W.P.(C) NO. 5355/2010 4