Muhammed Hashim.S vs The General Manager
2021 Latest Caselaw 1744 Ker

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

           MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 28TH POUSHA, 1942

                          WP(C).No.18770 OF 2019(U)


PETITIONER:

                MUHAMMED HASHIM.S
                AGED 51 YEARS
                S/O M.K.SAINUDEEN, GNRA 1 ANAS HOUSE, TC 35/947, GANDHI
                NAGAR, VALLAKKADAVU P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 008

                BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH KANNAN

RESPONDENTS:

       1        THE GENERAL MANAGER
                FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

       2        ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,
                FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, GANDHI NAGAR,
                CHENNAI-600006.

       3        DISTRICT MANAGER,
                FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, DISTRICT OFFICE, VALIYATHUA ( PO),
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 008

       4        THE AREA MANAGER,
                FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, DISTRICT OFFICE, AIR PORT ROAD,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 008

                BY SMT.K.R.KRISHNAKUMARI, SC

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.01.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.18770 OF 2019(U)

                                    2



                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is working as a 'Handling Labour'

under the 3rd respondent Food Corporation of India, has

approached this Court praying that the date of birth in the

service records be corrected as 25.01.1968 instead of

25.09.1965.

2. The petitioner says that, as is evident from Ext.P1 -

which is the extract of his SSLC Certificate and from Ext.P2 -

which is the copy of his Aadhaar Card, his date of birth is

25.09.1965. He submits that, therefore, he preferred Ext.P3

application on 04.01.2000 and that since no action was taken

thereon, he followed it with Exts.P4 and P5 representations,

dated 18.11.2014 and 09.05.2017 respectively.

3. The petitioner alleges that, in spite of this, the

respondents have rejected his applications merely for the reason

that it is belated and that, therefore, he is not entitled to any

relief. The petitioner thus prays that Exts.P7 and P8 be set aside

and the respondents be directed to consider his request for

correction of the date of birth as per law.

4. In response to the submissions of the petitioner as

made by his learned counsel - Sri.K.Rajesh Kannan, the learned WP(C).No.18770 OF 2019(U)

Standing Counsel for the respondent - Smt.Krishnakumari,

submitted that a counter affidavit has been placed on record

wherein, they have averred specifically that Ext.P3 is a

concocted document, which never reached them. She submitted

that even though the petitioner says that Ext.P3 was preferred

on 04.01.2000, same was never received by any of the

respondents and that, in fact, the first of the petitioner's request

for correction of his Date of Birth was only as per Ext.P4 dated

18.11.2014, which was followed by Ext.P5 dated 09.05.2017.

She contended that as per Rule 6 of Fundamental Rule - which

is applicable to the services under the 3 rd respondent - it is only

if an application has been made for correction of date of birth

within five years of the date of entry into Government Service

can it be considered. She then submitted that, as is evident

from Exts.P4 and P5, they were made more than 14 and 17

years respectively after the petitioner entered the service on

01.05.1996, and consequently that same could not be considered

by her client. She, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be

dismissed.

5. When I consider the afore submissions, the pertinent WP(C).No.18770 OF 2019(U)

question in this case is whether the petitioner had preferred

Ext.P3 application within a period of five years as has been

averred by him. Even though Ext.P3 carries the date 04.01.2000,

the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent contends that

same has never been received by his client.

6. Therefore, the crucial factual aspect which has to be

proved by the petitioner is that he had made Ext.P3 on

04.01.2000; and if that be so, then, even going by the

Fundamental Rule which has been relied upon by the

respondents, they are bound to consider his request for

correction of the date of birth, particularly because, Exts.P1 and

P2 extracts of the SSLC Certificate and the Aadhaar Card show

that he was born on 25.01.1968.

7. As I have already said above, the singular reason why

Exts.P6, P7 and P8 have been issued by the respondents is that

Ext.P3 had not been received by them and therefore, that

Exts.P4 and P5 are hopelessly belated in time.

8. Hence, I am certain that the petitioner must be given

an opportunity of establishing before the respondents that

Exts.P3 had been preferred by him in time and if he is able to do WP(C).No.18770 OF 2019(U)

so, then certainly the respondents will have to consider his case

as per law.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition, and

direct the respondents to afford another opportunity of being

heard to the petitioner, during which process, he will also be

entitled to produce all documents to substantiate his plea that

Ex.P3 was preferred on 04.01.2000; and to thereafter issue a

fresh order, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than

three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

In order to pave way for this exercise, I set aside Exts.P7 and

P8.

To facilitate an expeditious compliance of the directions

above, I direct the petitioner to mark appearance in the office of

the 4th respondent at 11.00 a.m on 28.01.2021 along with all

relevant documents in support of his assertion he had preferred

Ext.P3 on 04.01.2000 and the said respondent will hear him on

that date or on another date to be fixed.

SD/-

                                         DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

rp                                                JUDGE
 WP(C).No.18770 OF 2019(U)






                                   APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1                 TRUE COPY OF THE SSLC CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE
                           PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P2                 TRUE COPY OF THE ADHAAR CARD NO 6867 2563 1622

SHOULD TO THE PETITIONER BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY PETITIONER DATED 4.1.2000

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.11.2014

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 9.5.2017

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11.5.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATE4D 11.1.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ON 8.5.2019

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BIO DATA SIGNED AND SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 1.5.1996

EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE NOMINATION AND DECLARATION FORM DULY SIGNED AND SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 10.6.1998

EXHIBIT R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM F NO.19017/2014-ESTT (A-IV) DATED 16TH DECEMBER , 2014 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL,PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS