IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23/12/2004
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE A.K.RAJAN
WRIT PETITION NO.11767 of 1999
T.Veeran ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Commissioner of
Municipal Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005
2.The Regional Director of
Municipal Administration,
Madurai Region,
Race Course Colony Road,
Madurai-625 002
3.The Commissioner,
Melur Municipality,
Madurai District ... Respondents
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records
pertaining to the order of the third respondent passed in his proceedings
Na.Ka.No.3439/98/C1, dated 29.01.1999 and quash the same and consequently
directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in service as
"Sanitary Worker" in the office of the third respondent till 31.7.2006 to pay
him the salary and all other attendant benefits for the period from 1.2.1999.
!For petitioner ...Mr.A.Palaniappan
^For respondents ...Mr.R.Kanniappan-GA.
:ORDER
The petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ of
certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order of the
third respondent passed in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.3439/98/C1, dated 29.01
.1999 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to permit
the petitioner to continue in service as “Sanitary Worker” in the office of
the third respondent till 31.7.2006 to pay him the salary and all other
attendant benefits for the period from 1.2.1999.
2. The petitioner was working as Sanitary Worker in the
office of the third respondent from 01.07.1967. Since he has no school
education, his date of birth was not known to him. After coming into force of
the rules relating to entries regarding the date of birth in the service book,
he was referred to the Government Hospital, Melur for ascertaining his age.
Accordingly, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Melur issued
age certificate on 12.5.1977, certifying that his age was between 30 and 32
years by that time. Therefore, the authority has taken his date of birth as
15.07.1946.
3. While that be the case, suddenly his date of birth has
been altered in the service book as 15.01.1939 instead of 15.07.1946. This
has been challenged in view of the audit report, which has pointed out that
the petitioner was employed earlier in the Municipality and hence, his date of
birth has been corrected as 15.01.1939 and on that basis, he was superannuated
on 31.01.1999. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed challenging the
order of superannuation, which is violative of the right.
4. In the counter affidavit it is stated that he had joined
in the then Melur Town Panchayat as temporary drain cleaner on 01.08.1960 and
at that time, a service roll was opened by the then Executive Officer. In
that service roll, it is stated that his date of birth was entered as
15.01.1939 and therefore, his date of birth was corrected in his service book.
Accordingly, he was terminated from his service on 31.1.1999.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as early
as on 8.4.1999, legal notice has been issued to the third respondent stating
that his date of birth has been corrected without informing him by notice,
which is illegal and for that no reply was given to him. Learned counsel
further states that the third respondent is not the permissible authority to
correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 15 .01.1939 instead of
15.07.1946. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
acceptable, even assuming that there is a different date of birth as entered
in the service book, it cannot be corrected without giving notice to the
petitioner.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the service register
maintained by the department in the name of Veeran, where the date of birth
was entered as 15.1.1939. It is possible that both these persons may be the
different persons or it may also be possible that doctor certificates relate
to one and the same person. Whatever be that, his date of birth is concerned;
it has been corrected without notice. On the other hand, if the real date of
birth of the petitioner is 15.7.19 46, he cannot be terminated from his
service on 31.01.1999.
7. Under those circumstances, the only option to this court
to direct the respondents to conduct enquiry and fix the date of birth of the
petitioner. This exercise shall be completed within one month from today. If
the petitioner is aggrieved by the enquiry order, it is always open to him to
challenge the same before the appropriate forum. It is made clear that if the
respondents do not complete the enquiry within the stipulated one month time
from today, the petitioner shall be entitled to reinstate to the service. The
petitioner shall also co-operate with the employer. Writ petition is disposed
of with the above observations. No costs.
Index:Yes
Website:Yes
tsv.
To
1.The Commissioner of
Municipal Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005
2.The Regional Director of
Municipal Administration,
Madurai Region,
Race Course Colony Road,
Madurai-625 002
3.The Commissioner,
Melur Municipality,
Madurai District