Suresh Babu.A.B vs Kerala State Electricity Board
2021 Latest Caselaw 3444 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

     MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 12TH MAGHA,1942

                       WP(C).No.6647 OF 2009(A)


PETITIONER:

               SURESH BABU.A.B.,
               AGED 36 YEARS
               SUB ENGINEER,
               T.C.SECTION,
               K.S.E.BOARD,
               SUB SECTION COMPOUND,
               VIYYUR.PO,
               THRISSUR.

               BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.

RESPONDENTS:

      1        KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
               VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

      2        STATE OF KERALAREPRESENTED BY THE
               SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
               POWER DEPARTMENT,
               GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

      3        THE CHIEF ENGINEER HRM, K.S.E.BOARD
               VYDYUTHI BHAVAN,PATTOM,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

               R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN,
               SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMIT
               R1 BY SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB
               R1 BY SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD        ON
01.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.6647 OF 2009                     2

                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that he was working as

a Sub Engineer in the services of the 1st

respondent - Kerala State Electricity Board

(KSEB for short) - at the time when this writ

petition was filed - and that he had

approached its competent Authority through

Ext.P4 application dated 15.01.2003, for

having his service book corrected to show his

date of birth as 28.04.1973, instead of

12.04.1972.

2. The petitioner says that even though

his application was made well within time,

namely within five years after the date on

which he entered the service, it has been

rejected by the Authority of the KSEB through

Ext.P11 order citing the reason that said

application cannot be treated to have been

filed within the stipulated period, since

necessary supporting documents had not been

produced along with it.

3. The petitioner says that the reasons

in Ext.P11 are untenable since, as is evident

from Ext.P4, he had produced all the relevant

documents, including the date of birth

certificate from the Local Self Government

Institution; but conceded that on that date,

his SSLC book had not been corrected, though

he had made an application for such purpose

simultaneously. The petitioner says that,

therefore, the Board could not have taken a

stand that Ext.P4 is incomplete and thus prays

that Ext.P11 be set aside and they be directed

to take up the said application and issue

appropriate orders thereon at the earliest.

4. In response to the afore submissions

made on behalf of the petitioner by his

learned counsel - Shri.Elvin Peter P.J., the

learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB-

Sri.M.K.Thankappan, submitted that the Rules

which govern the correction of date of birth

in the service book of the employees of the

KSEB are the same as those which govern the

services of employees of the Government. He

said that Government Order bearing number G.O.

(P)No.26/91/P&ARD dated 27.08.1991,

subsequently amended by Government Order

bearing number G.O.(P)No.45/91/P&ARD dated

30.12.1991, governs the procedure and the

manner of corrections in the service books of

the KSEB employees and he contended that going

by these orders, it is only when an

application is supported by the corrected SSLC

book, can it be seen to be a validly presented

one. He thus argued that since, admittedly,

Ext.P4 was not supported by the corrected SSLC

book, same could not have been taken as a

valid one, thus asserting that Ext.P11 is

without error.

5. From the rival contentions afore

recorded, it is clear that, as of now, the

KSEB has rejected the petitioner's

application, namely Ext. P4, only for the

reason that it had not been supported by the

corrected SSLC Book. Even though Ext.P11 says

that his application for correction of his

service book was not filed within time, what

they really mean is that Ext.P4 application

cannot be considered as valid but that only

Ext.P10 - which was the subsequent application

made by the petitioner, along with the

corrected SSLC Book can be so treated, but

which had been filed beyond the period of five

years after he had entered the service.

6. When I am called upon to assess the

rival contentions, it becomes incumbent upon

me to examine the afore mentioned Government

Orders. Going by the 1st Government Order,

namely, G.O.(P)No.26/91/P&ARD dated

27.08.1991, it is mandated that "an

application for correction of the service

records should be made within a period of two

years from the date on which the employees

takes office" and that "such application

should be supported by attested copies of SSLC

Book/SSC book or extract of school records

whichever is applicable as corrected" (sic).

Subsequently, by Government Order G.O.

(P)No.45/91/P&ARD dated 30.12.1991, the period

for seeking correction was enlarged to five

years, but the other conditions mentioned

above are maintained.

7. Therefore, as matters now stand,

every employee who seeks correction of the

Service Book will have to approach the KSEB

within five years from the date on which

he/she entered service and such application

will have to be supported by the corrected

SSLC Book / SSC book.

8. In the case at hand, the petitioner

joined the service on 13.12.1999 and he made

his first application, namely Ext.P4, on

15.01.2003. There can be no doubt that this

application is within time, as per the afore

Government Orders; though it is conceded that

the SSLC Book of the petitioner had not been

corrected by then.

             9.    The       records         reveal         that       the

       petitioner         had     made       an     application        for

       correction of the SSLC Book                 on 15.01.2003, as

is evident from Ext.P2 subsequent order of the

Joint Commissioner for Government

Examinations, Thiruvanathapuram, as per which,

his SSLC Book was corrected, showing the date

of birth as 28.04.1973. Ext.P2 order was

issued on 12.09.2007 and this prompted the

petitioner to approach the KSEB with Ext. P9

application on 19.09.2007, followed by Ext.

P10 application dated 13.05.2008, seeking

again that his service book be corrected.

10. It is here that the controversy

begins because the KSEB maintains that only

Exts.P9 and P10 applications can be construed

to be valid ones, while Ext.P4 cannot be,

since it was not supported by the corrected

SSLC Book.

11. The question whether an application

for correction of the service book has to be

supported by corrected SSLC book has engaged

the attention of this Court in various cases

in the past. In Sukumaran Nair Vs. State of

Kerala [1997 (1) KLT 530], a learned Single

Judge of this Court, no doubt, held that,

going by the statutory provisions, the School

Leaving Certificate alone shall be the

document for the purpose of correcting the

service book and that, therefore, unless the

entry of date of birth in the School record is

corrected, an employee cannot claim correction

of date of birth in the service book.

12. This decision was followed by a

Division Bench judgment of this court in

Bhaskaran Vs. State of Kerala [ILR 2001 KER

274] which declares that the benefit of

correction of date of birth in the service

book is not a statutory right, but conferred

by Government Orders and as a matter of

concession. The learned Division Bench then

went on to say that, therefore, an employee

can apply for correction of the service book

only strictly as per the mandate of the

Government Orders, which is to say only if it

is supported by the documents as stipulated

therein.

13. Finally, in Ravindran Vs. State of

Kerala [2000 (2) ILR 55], another learned

Division Bench considered the scope of the

afore mentioned Government Orders and held as

under:

" 2. petition filed by appellant for correction of his date of birth in the service records was rejected by Government. Reason for such rejection was that the application was filed beyond time limit provided in the concerned Government order i.e., G.O.(P) 45/91/P and A.R.D., dated 30 th December 1991. That order provides for a time limit of five years from date of entry in service for purpose of filing application for correction of date of birth in the service records. Appellant, being a person in service on the date of the said government order, ought to have moved application within one year from 30th December 1991. Admittedly same was filed on 12.11.1998. In such circumstances, application was rejected. Appellants stand before learned Single Judge was that he obtained correction of date of birth entered in the school records only on 10 th November 1998 and immediately thereafter applied for correction of date of birth in the service records. Learned Single Judge has observed that time limits were specifically provided setting out outer limits by which application has to be filed. There was no impediment standing on appellants way in making application for correction even before receipt of order passed by the Joint Secretary in General Education (G) Department (Ext. P15), He could have adduced available evidence to show his date of birth within the time limit prescribed in Government order dated 30th December 1991. Order of the Commissioner for Government Examinations correcting date of birth in school records could have been produced at the time of consideration of his application. That was not done."

            14. It          is          indubitable           from         the


       declarations in Ravindran                     (Supra) that since

there is a specified time frame within which

an employee has to seek correction of the date

of birth in his Service Book, any application

filed beyond that cannot be considered.

However, what is of some comfort to the

petitioner in this case is that the learned

Division Bench has also held that there was no

impediment in the way of an employee making an

application for correction even before receipt

of the orders from the Education Department

and that in such cases, the employee can lead

evidence to show that he had applied for

correction of his date of birth in the

educational records within the time frame

prescribed by the Government.

15. Applying the holdings in Ravindran

(Supra) to the facts of this case, it is

ineluctable that the petitioner's first

application, namely Ext.P4, was made within

five years of him having entered the service

in the year 1999. He had simultaneously, on

the same day, namely 15.01.2003, applied for

correction of his date of birth in the

educational records before the Commissioner

for Government Examinations and this

application was allowed by the said Authority

through Ext.P2 on 12.09.2007, leading to his

SSLC book being consequently corrected, as is

limpid from Ext.P3. It is consequent to these

developments that the petitioner approached

the KSEB through Exts.P9 and P10, but this

does not mean that his application was made

for the first time then.

16. In the afore perspective, the only

question that is now relevant for my

consideration is whether Ext.P4 can be seen to

be a valid application and whether the fact

that it was not supported by the corrected

SSLC book can denude it of that benefit.

17. However, it would not be necessary

for me to speak elaborately on this, since

I am guided by the judgment of the learned

Division Bench in Ravindran (Supra), which

makes it clear that it is the obligation of an

employee to make application for correction of

his service book within the time frame

mentioned in the Government Orders and that

this can be done even when the application for

correction of his SSLC book has not been

finally decided.

18. In other words, if the petitioner is

able to establish - which, in this case, is

evident from Ext.P2 itself - that he had

applied for correction of his educational

certificates within time and had then

approached the KSEB for correction of the

service book, merely because the corrected

SSLC book had not been produced could not have

been a reason for the KSEB to reject such

application.

19. As far as the facts presented in this

case are concerned, there is no doubt that

Ext.P4 is supported by the other specified

documents, including the date of birth

certificate of the petitioner from the Local

Self Government Institution and that he had

applied for correction of the date of birth

simultaneously before the Commissioner for

Government Examinations.

20. Therefore, the ratio in Ravindran

(Supra) comes to the aid of the petitioner

since, it is without doubt that he had

approached the KSEB within time for correction

of his Service Book, as also the Commissioner

for Government Examinations for correction of

his SSLC book.

21. In the conspectus of the above, I am

left without any doubt that Ext.P4 is

deserving of being construed as a valid

application, though was not supported by the

corrected SSLC book at that time; and that the

KSEB must consider the same in terms of law,

adverting to the provisions of the Government

Orders afore mentioned - as also the specific

factual circumstances and factors that may

come into play in this case.

In the afore circumstances, this writ

petition is ordered setting aside Ext.P11;

with a consequential direction to the

competent Authority of the KSEB to take up

Ext.P4 application of the petitioner and

dispose of the same in terms of Government

Orders dated 27.08.1991 and 30.12.1991, after

affording him an opportunity of being heard -

either physically or through video

conferencing - thus culminating in an

appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as

is possible, but not later than three months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

MC/3.2.2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.29.11.1999 ISSUED BY THE KSE BOARD.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.12.9.2007 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT.EXAMINATIONS.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SSLC BOOK OF THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.15.1.2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATED OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE PULPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER'S SISTER ISSUED BY THE PULPALLY GRAMAM PANCHAYAT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATED DT.27.12.2002 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER PULPALLY.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF RS.500/-BY THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.19.9.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.`13.5.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.8.2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER G.O(P)NO.45/91/P&ARD DATED 30.12.1991