Karnataka High Court
Sri Vastadi Peera Saheb vs The Chairman & Managing Director on 14 June, 2022
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.19061 OF 2012 (S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
SRI.VASTADI PEERA SAHEB
S/O LATE.JAMAL SAB
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT: NO.391, 8TH WARD
GAJIKERE, HARAPANAHALLI
DAVANGERE DISTRICT.
WORKING AS ASST. TRAFFIC INSPECTOR
AT HARAPANAHALLI DEPOT
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPN. LTD.,
DAVANGERE DVN.,
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.D.GANGADHARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD.,
HEAD OFFICE, SHANTHINAGAR
DOUBLE ROAD
BENGALURU.
2. THE DVL. CONTROLLER
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
2
TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD.,
DAVANGERE DIVISION
DAVANGERE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING
CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri.D.Gangadhara., learned counsel for petitioner
and Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for respondents
have appeared in person.
2. The brief facts of the case are stated as under:
The petitioner joined the service of the Corporation
as a conductor in the year 1973. It is stated that at the
time of admission to the school (joining the 1st Standard),
he had given his date of birth as 01.07.1954, but during
the 2nd standard, the school authorities have wrongly
carried out the date of birth as 01.07.1952 instead of
01.07.1954.
It is stated that the change in the date of birth has
not come to the knowledge of the petitioner. It is only
during the year 2006, he came to know the change in date
of birth. He filed a suit before the Civil Court in
O.S.No.26/2006 for carrying out the correct date of birth
as 01.07.1954. The suit came to be disposed off by the
Civil Court by conforming the date of birth of the petitioner
as 01.07.1954 instead of 01.07.1952. The same was
challenged by the respondents before the Appellate Court
The Appellate Court confirmed the order of the Civil Court.
It is averred that after the order passed by the Civil
Court, the petitioner made correspondence with the
respondent Authority to correct his date of birth as
01.07.1954 instead of 01.07.1952 in the service records.
The respondent Authority did not carry out the change in
the date of birth in the service records and the respondent
Authorities passed an order on 15.07.2011.
Under these circumstances, the petitioner having left
with no other of alternative and efficacious remedy has
filed this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner and respondents
have urged several contentions.
4. Learned counsel for respondents has relied on
the following decisions:
1. STATE OF M.P Vs. PREMLAL SHRIVAS - AIR
2011 SC 3418.
2. UNION OF INDIA Vs. HARNAM SINGH -
1993 (2) SCC 162.
3. M.RAMACHANDRACHAR Vs. REGISTRAR,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
GKVK, BANGALORE AND ANOTHER - 2003
(5) KLJ 441.
4. STATE OF MAHARASTRA Vs. GORAKHNATH
SITARAM KAMBLE - 2010 (14) SCC 423.
5. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of the
parties and perused the Writ papers with care.
6. The short point which requires consideration is
whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as sought
for in the Writ Petition?
The Petitioner has sought for a direction against the
respondent - Authority to continue his service period up to
30.06.2014 instead of 30.06.2012. Further he has also
sought for a direction to effect his service record as per
rules and guidelines of the Corporation.
It is not in dispute that the Petitioner joined the
service of the Corporation as a conductor in the year 1973.
As could be seen from Annexure-R1, the Secondary
Education Examination Board Certificate produced by the
petitioner in proof of date of birth, the date of birth is
entered as 01.07.1952. In the service register of the
petitioner - Workman, the date of birth has been entered
as 01.07.1952, the said entries made in the register has
been attested by the petitioner - Workman.
Suffice it to note that the petitioner was issued with
DEO No.254/2010 dated:16.07.2010 intimating him with
regard to cancellation of pension deduction and also
settlement of pension consequent on his attaining the age
of 58 years as on 30.06.2010. He was also issued with
DEO No.221/2011 dated:15.07.2011 (about a year back of
his retirement) intimating that he is attaining the age of
superannuation on 30.06.2012. The petitioner was aware
of the fact that he would retire in the month of June 2012
however, he remained silent till January 2012, and he
submitted a representation on 31.01.2012 requesting for
change of date of birth in his service records.
While addressing argument, learned counsel
Smt.H.R.Renuka., has drawn the attention of the Court to
the rules governing the change of date of birth. The same
is reiterated as under.
The rules governing the change of date of birth the
circular No.304 dated:26.07.1976. Clause VI of the said
Circular states as under:
VI. Alteration in the date of birth once
accepted will on no account be made except in
the case of clerical error or of fraud on the part
of the employee concerned.
A bare reading of the above Clause depicts that
alteration in the date of birth once accepted will on no
account be made accept under the circumstances as stated
in the Circular. The petitioner's date of birth has been
entered in the service records as per the certificates
produced by him at the time of appointment. The petitioner
during the tenure of his service right from 1973 till the
year 2012, did not make any attempt to bring to the notice
of the employer about his date of birth.
It appears from the records that the petitioner's
claim is based on a judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.26/2006. The judgment is furnished as
Annexure-A. I have perused the same with care.
It is significant to note that the petitioner has not
arrayed the Corporation as party to the proceedings
instead has arrayed Chief Secretary, Government of
Karnataka, and others as defendants. The learned Trial
Judge has also observed that the decree does not bind the
employer. In my considered view the Trial Court is justified
in concluding so.
It is needless to observe that the Petitioner has slept
over the matter for over a period of 39 years without even
making any efforts to bring to the notice of his employer
with regard to the change of date of birth till the January
2012. Further even on the date when he made a
representation, he had not even got his SSLC marks card
corrected. As already noticed above, in the suit, he has not
arrayed the Corporation as a party to the proceedings. In
my view, the petitioner cannot be permitted to seek
change of date of birth in the service records at the fag
end of his service inasmuch as he was due for retirement
on 30.06.2012 while the representation submitted for
change of date of birth is on 31.01.2012.
The date of birth of the petitioner as 01.07.1952 has
been entered in the service register as per the information
furnished by him and the entry has been duly attested by
him and the entry has been made in the year 1973. The
petitioner is seeking change of date of birth in the year
2012 after a lapse of 40 years when he was about to
retire. The claim is untenable.
It is not in dispute that the Corporation notified the
petitioner with regard to the date of retirement, in the year
2010 itself and he did not choose to reply. It is only in
January 2012 he submitted a representation requesting for
change of date of birth. Such a correction is not
permissible in terms of the Circular prevailing in the
Corporation governing change of date of birth. The
petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right for change of
date of birth in the service register after a long lapse of 39
to 40 years which would seriously affect the service
conditions of the officers below him who are/were waiting
for years for promotion and other benefits.
Counsel for respondents has cited a number of
cases, but I do not think that the law is in doubt. Each
decision turns on its own facts. The present case is also
tested in the light of the aforesaid decisions.
In my considered view, the Corporation is justified in
its action.
Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TKN
