Kerala High Court
Union Of India vs Sunny Joseph on 23 May, 2024
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946
OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 24.07.2023 IN OA NO.469 OF
2022 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION
AND BROADCASTING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SHASTRI
BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PRASAR BHARATI BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA,
COPERNICUS MARG NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
3 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
ALL INDIA RADIO, AKASHVANI BHAVAN, SANSAD MARG,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
4 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF DOORDARSHAN
DOORDARSHAN BHAVAN COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI,
PIN - 110001
5 THE NODAL PUBLIC GRIEVANCE OFFICER
(THE JOINT SECRETARY) FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
& PUBLIC GRIEVANCES, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND
BROADCASTING, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
6 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL,
DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043
7 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL,
AKASHVANI, ALL INDIA RADIO, VAZHUTHAKADU P.O
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.
BY ADVS.
R.V.SREEJITH, SCGC
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:
SUNNY JOSEPH
AGED 58 YEARS
ASSISTANT ENGINEER DOORDARSHAN KENDRA,
OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024
2
KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 043
(PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
(ENGINEERING), AKASHVANI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM),
RESIDING AT KALLIYADICKAL HOUSE, TC 12/757,
MADANKOVIL LANE, MUTTADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.,
PIN - 695025
BY ADVS.
M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR
SEEMA KRISHNAN(S-1457)
T.D.SUSMITH KUMAR(K/65/2004)
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.05.2024,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024
3
"C.R"
AMIT RAWAL & EASWARAN S., JJ.
------------------------------------
OP (CAT) No.83 of 2024
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2024
JUDGMENT
Easwaran, J.
Respondents in Original Application No.469/2022 before
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench are
before this Court in the present Original Petition. The Original
Application was filed by the respondent herein seeking to
challenge Annexures-A14, A15, A17, A19, A21, A24, A25, A28
and A31 orders. The grievance of the applicant before the
Central Administrative Tribunal was that the petitioners herein
rejected his request made by him for correction of date of birth
entered in the service records.
2. The facts pleaded in the Original Application show
that the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal
entered service as an Engineering Assistant on 07.11.1989. At
the time of his appointment, the date of birth entered in the
service records as per the entries in the SSLC Book was
OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024
01.06.1964. Later, the applicant claimed that his actual date of
birth is 02.07.1964. Further, it is contended that the said fact
came to the knowledge of the applicant only when he took a
copy of the birth certificate on 10.04.2007. Immediately
thereafter, he approached the State Government for correction
of the date of birth in the SSLC records, which was also
accepted on 27.06.2007. Later, the applicant claims that the
entries in his SSLC Book was corrected as per the order dated
13.01.2012 and consequent to the correction in the SSLC Book,
the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal
submitted representation to the Director of All India Radio,
Vazhuthakadu on 16.7.2013 produced as Annexure-A13 before
the Central Administrative Tribunal. The representation was
thereafter answered on 5.8.2013, which is evident from
Annexure-A14. Though in Annexure-A14 representation was
forwarded, the authorities prima facie entertained an opinion
that since the applicant has sought for correction of date of
birth in the service records after five years after the date of
entry into service, the same is not in accordance with the
OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024
instructions contained in DoP&T Office Memorandum
No.19017/2/92-Estt(A) dated 19.05.1993. Despite this, the
representation was forwarded for further consideration. After a
series of inter-departmental communications finally by
Annexure-A24 dated 04.02.2015 the Deputy Director
(Administration), India's Public Service Broadcaster Directorate
General, All India Radio, New Delhi addressed to the Director of
All India Radio, Thiruvananthapuram informing him that the
application for correction of date of birth in the service records
of the respondent/applicant herein stood rejected and the
decision of the competent authority may be communicated to
the respondent/applicant. Later, on 09.03.2015, the request
for replacement of Aadhar card submitted by the
respondent/applicant was also rejected, since the date of birth
entered in the service records as well as the document now
sought to be replaced were found to be different.
3. Consequent to the above proceeding, it was noticed
by order dated 06.05.2015 that the respondent/applicant had
not registered himself in the bio-metric attendance system.
OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024
Therefore, he was further directed to register himself for the
bio-metric attendance system immediately. To the said order,
the respondent/applicant replied under Annexure-A27 dated
22.05.2015 that his application for correction of date of birth in
the service records is still pending and that the date of birth in
the Aadhar Card and other related documents was corrected
based on the corrected date of birth. After a series of further
proceedings, by Annexure-A28 dated 06.01.2020, it was
ordered that it is not possible to accept the documents with the
change of date of birth, once the date of birth in the service
records had been recorded. However, to ascertain as to
whether there is a change in the existing Rules, the matter was
placed before the Director General. In the meantime, the
petitioner also invoked the mechanism provided for public
grievance, which was also turned down by order dated
04.08.2022, which is evident from Annexure-A31.
4. Immediately after passing Annexure-A31 order, the
respondent/applicant approached the Central Administrative
OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024
Tribunal with the present Original Application on which the
order impugned was passed.
5. The respondents in the Original Application/the
petitioners herein entered appearance and contested the claim.
Petitioners/respondents raised their objections to the belated
claim of the respondent/applicant for correction of the date of
birth. It was specifically contended that the applicant's request
for change of date of birth was only after completing 23.5 years
of regular service and therefore it was highly belated.
6. Based on the pleadings on record, the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench concluded that the
change of the date of birth in the service records would only
alter the period of service by 32 days and consequently, the
applicant's retirement would stand deferred from 31.5.2024 to
31.7.2024. It was further held that no additional burden will
have to be borne by the respondents and accordingly, the
Original Application was allowed vide Ext.P6 order dated
24.07.2023. It is aggrieved by the aforesaid order that the
Union of India and others are before this Court invoking the
OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024
power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India.
7. We have heard Sri.R.V.Sreejith, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners/respondents, and Sri.M.P.Krishnan
Nair, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/applicant.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners/respondents
would contend that the Tribunal erred egregiously in
entertaining a belated claim for correction of date of birth in the
service records. As per the prevalent rules, the applicant ought
to have raised a claim within a period of five years from the
date of entering into service. It was also submitted that even
the claim before the Tribunal was not maintainable, since it was
a belated claim as the cause of action for filing the Original
Application arose in the year 2015, and therefore the present
Original Application could not have been entertained by the
Tribunal. He also further relied on Rule 56 of the Fundamental
Rules, wherein the application for correction of date of birth
should have been made within a period of five years from the
date of entering into service. Reliance was placed on the
OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v.
Harnam Singh [(1993) 2 SCC 162]. Further, he also placed
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas [(2011) 9 SCC 664].
Thus, he prayed for setting aside the order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal allowing the Original Application.
9. On the other hand, Sri.M.P.Krishnan Nair, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/applicant, made
a fervent plea before this Court that his client cannot be found
fault with for having approached the authorities in the year
2013 (5.8.2013). He further argued that only after getting the
date of birth corrected in the SSLC Book, which was only on
13.1.2012 that he could have moved before the authorities for
getting the service records corrected. He further took this
Court to Annexure-A3 order passed on 27.6.2007, wherein
sanction was accorded by the State Government to correct the
SSLC Book of the applicant. It is because of delay between
27.6.2007 and 13.01.2012 that the applicant was disabled from
moving before the authorities for correction of date of birth in
OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024
the service records. Sri.M.P.Krishnan Nair would further refer
to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent and
would contend that the Original Petition filed is not
maintainable because of want of proper authority authorising
the incumbents to file the present Original Petition. He would
also further argue that there was no genuine bona fide mistake
on the part of his client in not approaching the authorities
within the time prescribed. The delay between 2007 to 2012,
according to the learned counsel for the respondent/applicant,
ought to have been excluded for the purpose of calculating the
period as prescribed under the Rules. Still further, he would
submit that at this point of time, the respondent/applicant is
now required to submit the corrected copies of Aadhar Card
and PAN Card for the purpose of processing pension claim.
Therefore, the learned counsel would request this Court to take
note of the mitigating circumstances and seek to sustain the
order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
10. We have considered the rival submissions raised
across the bar.
OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024
11. Before going into the comparative merits of the claim
raised by the respondent/applicant before the Tribunal, we are
constrained to note that the Tribunal, despite the specific bar
under Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal's Act,
1985, had chosen to entertain the Original Application, which
was highly belated. Section 21 of the Central Administrative
Tribunal's Act reads as follows:
"21. Limitation.--
(1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,--
(a) in a case where a final order such as is
mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of
section 20 has been made in connection with
the grievance unless the application is made,
within one year from the date on which such
final order has been made;
(b) in a case where an appeal or
representation such as is mentioned in clause
(b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been
made and a period of six months had expired
thereafter without such final order having
been made, within one year from the date of
expiry of the said period of six months.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1), where,--
(a) the grievance in respect of which an
application is made had arisen by reason of
any order made at any time during the period
of three years immediately preceding the
OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024
date on which the jurisdiction, powers and
authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable
under this Act in respect of the matter to
which such order relates; and
(b) no proceedings for the redressal of such
grievance had been commenced before the
said date before any High Court,
the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal
if it is made within the period referred to in clause
(a), or, as the case may be, clause (b) of sub-
section (1) or within a period of six months from
the said date, whichever period expires later.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1) or sub-section (2), an application may
be admitted after the period of one year specified
in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or, as
the case may be, the period of six months
specified in sub-section (2), if the applicant
satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause
for not making the application within such period."
12. It may be noted that sub-Section (3) of Section 21
begins with a non-obstante clause wherein it was incumbent
upon the respondent/applicant to have shown cause before the
Tribunal to have the application entertained, despite a delay
being caused. With this legal requirement, when we perused
the Original Application filed by the respondent herein, which is
produced as Ext.P1, there is no explanation caused on the
OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024
delay that has occurred in approaching the Tribunal. On a
contrary, there is an assertion that the application is within the
period of limitation. Still further, the applicant has chosen to
calculate the period of limitation from the date of Annexure-A31
order.
13. We are afraid that the approach of the
respondent/applicant was not correct. The Tribunal clearly
erred in entertaining the application under Section 19 of the
Central Administrative Tribunal's Act contrary to the statutory
requirement under Section 21. Admittedly, the cause of action
arose on 04.02.2015 when request for correction of date of
birth of the respondent/applicant in the service records was
declined. The proceedings, which led to the issuance of
Annexure-A31, had absolutely no bearing or correlation to the
cause which was already declined under Annexure-A24 order
dated 04.02.2015. The Tribunal failed miserably to appreciate
the fact that the cause projected under Annexure-A30, which
was rejected under Annexure-A31, was different from that
contained under Annexure-A24. In Annexure-A30, the
OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024
respondent/applicant only requested for acceptance of the
Aadhar Card with the corrected date of birth for the purpose of
registering himself in the bio-metric attendance. This has
absolutely no relation to the claim for correction of date of birth
in the service records. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold
that the application filed before the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench was clearly barred by limitation and
hit by Section 21 and the Tribunal could not have entertained
the said application.
14. Be that as it may, even we assume that the
application was within time, we are not persuaded to accept the
arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/applicant. It must be noted that the applicant
entered into service on 07.11.1989. At the time of entering
service, his date of birth recorded was 01.06.1964. The
request for correction of date of birth in the SSLC Book was
ordered on 27.06.2007 and the same was corrected on
13.01.2012. There is no explanation as to the delay which
occurred between 2007 to 2012. Even assuming that the said
OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024
period of delay could have been excluded, even then, the
applicant's claim for correction of date of birth in the service
records could not have been entertained by the authorities.
The respondent/applicant had also not entertained all the steps
he had to undertake to have an expeditious issuance of the
corrected SSLC Book after Annexure-A3 order.
15. It is now settled law that the correction of date of
birth in the service records cannot be claimed as a matter of
right. It has been held on numerous occasions by the Supreme
Court as well as by the High Courts that belated claim for
correction of the date of birth cannot be entertained by the
courts. In State of UP v. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya [2005
(6) SCC 49], it has been categorically held by the Supreme
Court that an application for correction of date of birth should
not be dealt with by the Courts, Tribunals or the High Courts,
keeping in view only the public servant concerned. It was
further held that any direction for correction of the date of birth
of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, in as
much as others waiting for years, below him for their respective
OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024
promotions are affected in this process. Even otherwise, it
would definitely be a burden on the Exchequer.
16. In a Bench decision of this Court in Ravindran v.
State of Kerala & Others [ILR 2000 (2) Kerala 55], it was
held by this Court that a government servant cannot apply for
correction of date of birth beyond the stipulated period. It was
further held that in the absence of any provision in the Rules for
correction of date of birth, the general principle of refusing
relief on the ground of latches or stale claims is generally
applied by the courts and the Tribunals. It is nonetheless
competent for the Government to fix a time limit in the service
rules, after which no application for correction of date of birth
of a Government servant can be entertained.
17. The question as to whether the correction of date of
birth could be entertained after the stipulated period of five
years based on the Civil Services (General Conditions) Rules,
1981 (Maharashtra) came up for consideration before the
Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and another v.
Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble & Others [(2010) 14 SCC
OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024
423]. It was held that the spirit and the intention of such rule
is reflected in a series of judgments of the Supreme Court. And
that an application given after a lapse of 28 years after entering
service cannot be considered by the Courts or the Tribunals.
18. In Punjab and Haryana High Court V. Megh Raj
Garg [(2010) 6 SCC 482], it was categorically held that once
the date of birth is entered in the service records in respect of
an employee, it becomes conclusive. On facts of that case,
considering the time limit of 2 years provided under the
relevant rules, the Apex Court proceeded to hold that the
application submitted for correction of date of birth after 2
years cannot be entertained.
19. To cite a few more precedents on this point, we can
find the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat and
others V. Vali Mohd. Dosabhai Sindhi [2006(6) SCC 537],
State of Madhya Pradesh V. Premlal Shrivas [(2011) 9 SCC
664] and Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others V. Chhota
Birsal Uranw [(2014) 12 SCC 570]. The ratio culled out from
the said decisions is that the courts/tribunals should not
OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024
entertain the request from the employee for correction of date
of birth in service records at the fag end of the career. However,
this rule is not without exception. Unless there is clinching proof
and unimpeachable evidence to show the date of birth of an
employee has been wrongly entered in his service record, and a
denial of permission to correct the said record would
tantamount to denial of justice, the courts have permitted such
corrections. When we apply the afore principles to facts, it
becomes evident that there was a statutory embargo to apply
for correction of date of birth beyond 5 years. The prudency of
the employer in prescribing the said embargo being sacrosanct
and is not open for judicial review by courts. Here, the
application for correction of date of birth was given in the year
2013 and the decision to reject the same was taken in the year
2015. But, since the Original Application was filed only in the
year 2022 and the applicant was due to retire during 2024, it
becomes clear that he had approached the Tribunal at the fag
end of his career. Thus it was not within the domain of the
Tribunal to have formed an opinion that even if the request for
OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024
entertaining the application for correction of date of birth is
allowed, it will not cause any prejudice to the Department. In
holding so, the Tribunal completely ignored the settled
principles laid down by the High Courts as well as by the
Supreme Court.
The result of the above discussion leads to the inevitable
conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to succeed.
Accordingly, Ext.P6 order dated 24.7.2023 in O.A.No.469/2022
on the files of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam
Bench is thus set aside. Resultantly, the Original Application
filed by the respondent herein would stand dismissed. No order
as to costs.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
jg
OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 83/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS/ANNEXURES
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.180/00469/2022 OF THE
HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE DATGED
10.04.2007 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KARIMANNOOR
GRAMA PANCHAYAT
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENATION DATED 12.04.2007
SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE MINISTER FOR
EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA FOR CORRECTION OF
DATE OF BIRTH
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.06.2007 OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA FOR CONDONING THE DELAY IN
SYBMITTING APPLICATION
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.K.DIS.EX.BB2/4855/2010/CGE DATED 13.01.2012 OF
THE JOINT COMMISSIONER FOR GOVERNMENT
EXAMINATIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.07.2009 ISSUED
BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPT.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ALONG WITH ITS TYPED COPY
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03.08.2009
SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE SUPERINTENDING
ENGINEER (HOD), DOORDARSHAN KNDRA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM LONG WITH ITS TYPED COPY.
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 14.08.2009
ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, PRASAR
BHARATI, DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, TRIVANDRUM
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.08.2009
SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE SECRETARYU,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.01.2010 ISSUED
BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPT., TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT.
EXAMINATIONS, TRIVANDRUM ALONG WITH ITS TYPED
COPY
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST PAGE OF THE CORRECTED SSLC
BOOK SHOWING THE DATE OF BIRTH AS 02.07.1964
Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE AADHAR CARD OF THE APPLICANT
SHOWING THE ATE OF BIRTH AS 02.07.1964
Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT OF THE APPLICANT
SHOWING THE DATE OF BIRTH AS 02.07.1964
OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024
Annexure A13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.07.2013
SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE DIRECTOR, ALL
INDIA RADIO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure A14 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.TVM-1(2)/2013-S
DATED 05.08.2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS
Annexure A15 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.TVM-1(2)/2013-S/1128
DATED 05.08.2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS
Annexure A16 TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED 01.11.2013
SUBMITTED BY TEH APPLICANT TO THE RESPONDENTS
Annexure A17 TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER LETTER DATED 11-10/12-
11/2013 ISSUED BY THE ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL
(PRO.) TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Annexure A18 TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER LETTER DATED 14.02.2014
SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE ADDL.DIRECTOR
GENERAL(P), ALL INDIA RADIO, TRIVANDRUM
Annexure A19 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.TVM-1(2)/2013-S/682
DATED 26.02.2014 ISSUED BY THE ADDL.DIRECTOR
GENERAL, ALL INDIA RADIO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, ALL INDIA RADIO, NEW DELHI
Annexure A20 TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER LETTER DATED 02.12.2014
SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE DIRECTOR
GENERAL, ALL INDIA RADIO, NEW DELHI
Annexure A21 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.TVM-21(2)/2012-S(SJ)/3577DATED 23.12.2014
ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (P) TO THE DIRECTOR
GENERAL, ALL INDIA RADIO, NEW DELHI
Annexure A22 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.Z-
20025/9/2014-ESTT.(AL) DATED 03.11.2014 ISSUED BY
THE MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCE &
PENSION
Annexure A23 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM
NO.11013/9/2014-ESTT(A-III) DATED 21.11.2014
ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC
GRIEVANCES & PENSION.
Annexure A24 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.14/1/2015-S-IV(B)/44
DATED 04.02.2015 OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
ADMINISTRATION(E), DIRECTORATE GENERAL, ALL INDIA
RADIO, NEW DELHI FORWARDED TO THE APPLICANT AS
PER ENDORSEMENT NO.TVM-21(2)201-S(SJ) DATED
16.02.2015
Annexure A25 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM
NO.10(1)2015-A1/DKT/(S)/5288 DATED 09.03.15
ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL (E),
DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024
Annexure A26 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM
NO.10(1)2015-A1/DKT(SJ) DATED 06.05.2015 ISSUED
BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL (E), DOORDARSHAN
KENDRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure A27 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY REPRESENTATION DATED
22.05.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT IN RESPECT
OF ANNEX.A26
Annexure A28 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.7(1)2017/A1/DKT/(SJ)
DATED 06.01.2020 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
GENERAL (E), DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, TRIVANDRUM TO
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, DOORDARSHAN, NEW DELHI
Annexure A29 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 02.11.2020
SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
GENERAL(E), DOORDARSHAN KENDRA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REQUESTING TO CONSIDER HIS
REQUEST FOR CORRECTION OF DATE OF BIRTH IN THE
SERVICE BOOK.
Annexure A30 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE
APPLICANT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT ON 12.11.2021 AND
THE APPEAL DATED 11.03.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE
APPLICANT BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY.
Annexure A31 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.7(1)2017/A1/DKT/944
DATED 04.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
GENERAL (E), DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, TRIVANDRUM TO
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL(E), DOORDARSHAN KENDRA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE APPLICANT REJECTING HIS
CLAIM OF CORRECTION OF DATE OF BIRTH IN THE
SERIVCE BOOK
Annexure A32 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM
NO.55/14/2014/P&PW(C) PART-I DATED 29.11.2016
ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC
GRIEVANCES & PENSION, NEW DELHI REGARDING
MANDATORY REGISTRATION IN BHAVISHYA PORTAL.
Annexure A33 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM
NO.55/14/2014/P&PW(C) PART-I DATED 21.01.2021
ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC
GRIEVANCES & PENSION, NEW DELHI REGARDING
MANDATORY REGISTRATION IN BHAVISHYA PORTAL.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 03.01.2023
FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN OA NO.180/00469/2022
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 27.01.2023 FILED
BY THE APPLICANT IN OA NO.180/00469/2022
Annexure A34 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 25-08-2023
ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT
Annexure A35 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05-01-2023 ISSUED
OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024
BY THE SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, ALL INDIA
RADIO REGARDING TRANSFER ON PROMOTION OF THE
APPLICANT
Annexure A36 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 03-01-2023
ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO DY. DIRECTOR (E)
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT DATED
15.05.2023, FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN THE ABOVE
OA
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY FOT HE ADDITIONAL REJOINDER DATED
12.06.2023 FILED BY THE APPLICANT IN OA
NO.180/00469/2022
Annexure A37 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.A-21/2017-
IC/E.IIIA DATED 28-11-2019
Annexure A38 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO,.F.V.22018/3/2023--BAE
DATED 23.02.2023 OF THE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.07.2023 IN OA
NO.180/00469/2022, OF THE TRIBUNAL
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(a) True copy of the DoPT Office Memorandum No.
19017/1/2014-Estt(A-IV) dated 16-12-2014
Exhibit R1(b) True copy of the email dated 11-08-2023
forwarding the Order dated 24-07-2023 to the
petitioners
Exhibit R1(c) True copy of the Memorandum dated 27-02-2024
issued by the Administrative Officer
Exhibit R1(d) True copy of the reply dated 29-02-2024 submitted
by the respondent herein to the Memorandum
Exhibit R1(e) True copy of the representation dated 16-03-2024
submitted by the counsel for the respondent
herein to the petitioners
Exhibit R1(f) True copy of the representation dated 08-05-2024
submitted by the respondent herein to the
petitioners
Exhibit R1(g) TRUE COPY OF THE AFORESAID LETTER DATED 13-05-
2024 WITH REPLY ENDORSEMENT WITH TYPED COPY
