Eldho P V vs The Cochin International Airport ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8528 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
 MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1945
                   WP(C) NO. 20211 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

           ELDHO P V
           AGED 37 YEARS, S/O VARGHESE P.V.,
           PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, AKKAMPARAMBU, VAPPALASSERY
           P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683572
           BY ADVS.
           P.P.BLESSY MOL
           ANILA PETER


RESPONDENTS:

    1      THE COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD
           KOCHI AIRPORT P.O, ERNAKULAM,
           REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTION, PIN - 682311
    2      EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION - EPFO
           BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN NO. 36/685-A POST BOX
           NO. 1895 KALOOR KOCHI, PIN - 682017
           REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER
           BY ADVS.
           P.BENNY THOMAS
           V.JOHN MANI
           P.BENNY THOMAS
           D.PREM KAMATH(K/1285/1998)
           TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL)(K/000821/2008)
           ABEL TOM BENNY(K/1381/2018)
           AARON ZACHARIAS BENNY(K/001533/2023)
           BHARATH NAIR(K/002569/2022)
           PRAISY THOMAS(CG/249/2020)
           AMRUTHA SELVAM(K/001249/2023)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WPC 20211/2023
                               ..2..



                          JUDGMENT

The petitioner seeks a direction to the 1 st respondent -

Cochin International Airport Ltd. (CIAL), where he is presently

working, to correct his Service Records, showing the date of birth

to be 25.03.1983, instead of 22.02.1985. He submits that he has

already preferred Ext.P6 application before the 1 st respondent for

this purpose and concedes that there is a Standing Order, which

prohibits any such change. He argues that said Standing Order is

illegal, since it goes counter to the statutory and constitutional

guarantees; and thus prays that Ext.P6 be directed to be taken up

and disposed of by the 1st respondent, without any avoidable

delay.

2. The afore request of Smt.Blessy Mol P.P - learned

counsel for the petitioner, was answered by Sri.Benny P.Thomas -

learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent, saying that, if

this Court is only inclined to direct Ext.P6 to be taken up by the

competent Authority of his client and disposed of on its merits,

there does not appear to be any legal impediment in doing so;

but prayed that this Court may not make any affirmative

declarations as to his entitlement to any relief and leave it to

the said Authority to take a decision on it in terms of law. He WPC 20211/2023 ..3..

added that he is making this submission also because Ext.P4

Standing Order will have to be adverted to by his client, while any

decision on Ext.P6 is taken.

3. The learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent -

Sri.V.John Mani, submitted that the petitioner's date of birth in his

client's records can be altered only if a joint declaration is made

by him and the 1st respondent. He added that, if any such is

done, then necessary action for correction will be taken forward.

4. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is clear that

petitioner's request for correction of his date of birth has not

been yet rejected by the 1st respondent and that Ext.P6 is still

pending before them. The question whether the Standing Order

would stand in the way of any such being granted, is not an issue

that this Court can consider at this stage, since it is for the said

Authority to take a decision on it at the first instance.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition with the following

directions:

a. The competent Authority of the 1st respondent will

take up Ext.P6 request of the petitioner and dispose of the same,

after affording him an opportunity of being heard and adverting

to all germane documents; thus culminating in an appropriate

order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is WPC 20211/2023 ..4..

possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt

of a copy of this judgment.

b. If, through the afore exercise, 1st respondent is to find

that the date of birth of the petitioner is deserving of being

corrected as 25.03.1983, then they will furnish a joint declaration,

along with the petitioner, to the 2nd respondent; which Authority

will thereupon consider the same and issue appropriate orders as

per law.

c. Needless to say, if the 1st respondent is to find against

the petitioner through the exercise as ordered in direction (a)

above, all his contentions are left open to challenge it

appropriately.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

ACR WPC 20211/2023 ..5..

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20211/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 4.11.2005 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.K DIS.EX.

BB4/37973/2007/CGE DATED 24.01.2008 BY JOINT COMMISSIONER FOR GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATH ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY DATED 26.11.1988 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STANDING ORDERS OF COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT GENERATED FROM THE EPF WEBSITE Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT IS PRODUCED Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF AADHAR CARD OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PAN CARD OF THE PETITIONER