Telangana High Court
M.A.Mujeeb vs The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 2 February, 2024
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.3310 of 2018
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :-
"...... to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in
the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the
respondents herein in considering petitioner's various
representations dated 18.02.1999, 16.07.1999, 10.05.2000,
09.06.2015, 08.07.2016, 30.08.2016, 26.09.2016, 26.12.2016
for change of petitioner's date of birth from 15.08.1957 to
15.08.1959 in all the service records of the petitioner herein
inspite of the specific recommendation of the Chief Manager-HR,
HPCL made vide his letter dated 12.09.2016 and also the
instructions of ED-Information Systems dated 15.09.2016 and
passing appropriate orders changing the petitioner's date of birth
from 15.08.1957 to his original date of birth i.e., 15.08.1959 in
the official service records of the petitioner herein as highly illegal,
arbitrary, malafide, unconstitutional and consequently direct the
respondents herein to forthwith pass appropriate orders".
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-
Corporation.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows :-
(a) The petitioner was initially appointed as a Tank
Truck Driver on a temporary basis at Warangal vide
proceedings dated 17.01.1980 issued by the respondent
Corporation, and thereafter, his services were regularized as a
Heavy Vehicle Driver vide proceedings dated 16.09.1980.
Thereafter, he was promoted to various higher posts. While so
during the year 1998, he came across the list of employees,
wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 15.08.1957 instead
of mentioning as 15.08.1959. The petitioner, in his application
for employment, inadvertently mentioned his date of birth as
15.08.1957. The petitioner made several representations to
the respondent Corporation requesting to change his date of
birth as 15.08.1959 instead of 15.08.1957 by duly enclosing
his S.S.C. Certificate, wherein his date of birth was mentioned
as 15.08.1959.
(b) Pursuant to the said representations, the Senior
Regional Manager, Cherlapally, vide letter dated 27.04.2000,
informed the petitioner that since he did not submit any
representation before the respondent-Corporation within a
period of five years from the date of his joining, the request of
the petitioner for change of his date of birth cannot be
considered. The petitioner contends that the said letter is not
valid in the eye of law as it was not issued by the competent
authority.
(c) Thereafter, the Chief Manager (P & A), office of the
General Manager, South Zone, Chennai, vide letter dated
09.08.2000 asked the petitioner to submit the required
documents i.e., School leaving Certificate, Transfer Certificate
etc., for taking further action. Further, the Chief Manager,
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, vide letter dated
12.09.2016, recommended that it is a fit case to be reviewed
based on the actual record produced by the petitioner at the
time of his employment and to consider his case for change of
date of birth by duly verifying the documents submitted by the
petitioner. Further, the E.D. Information Systems also
addressed a letter dated 15.09.2016 to the E.D-HRD (RM)
PH-7 requesting to consider the petitioner's case after verifying
the relevant documents and records available with the
respondent-Corporation. Though the petitioner made several
representations to the respondent authorities, so far, no action
has been taken on the said representations.
4. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition
by directing the respondents to consider the representations
submitted by the petitioner for change of his date of birth as
15.08.1959 instead of 15.08.1957 and pass appropriate orders
in accordance with law.
5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents
submits that the respondents have filed a counter affidavit
stating that as per the records of HPCL, the petitioner joined
the services of the respondent Corporation on 01.02.1980 in
the workman category. Since then, the petitioner has received
four promotions and retired from service on 31.08.2017. In
the application dated 26.10.1979 seeking employment, the
date of birth of the petitioner, both in words and in numbers,
was mentioned as 15.08.1957 and the age was mentioned as
22 years. The petitioner made several representations to the
respondent-Corporation for a change of his date of birth as
15.08.1959 instead of 15.08.1957 in the service records of the
respondent Corporation.
6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents
further submits that vide letter dated 09.08.2000, the
petitioner's statement that the dates of birth of his brothers
and sisters were not registered was not accepted by the
respondents. In the application for employment, the petitioner
declared that he had worked as a Tank Truck Driver at Audi
Venkateshwara and Company, Warangal, for a period from
10.05.1976 to 20.05.1977. If the employee's date of birth is
presumed as 15.08.1959, then he qualifies for getting the
driving licence only on 15.08.1977. Vide letter dated
08.07.2016, referring to his letter dated 09.06.2015, the
Petitioner reiterated his grievance with respect to the
rectification of the wrong entry of his date of birth year in the
service records and referred to the copies of his SSC certificate
and Passport No. 862105 in support of his case. However, the
Petitioner failed to produce the originals of the said
documents.
7. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents further
contends that the respondents have denied the contention of
the petitioner that in his application for employment, he had
mentioned his date of birth as 15.08.1957, which is an error
that occurred without his knowledge.
8. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents further
contends that the so-called letters dated 12.09.2016 and
15.09.2016 were merely recommended for review of the case of
the petitioner in the light of the relevant documents available
with the Corporation and as per the policy of the Corporation.
The facts and grounds urged by the petitioner in the present
writ petition are highly distorted, unreliable, incorrect and
unsustainable and are based on mere conjectures and
surmises. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief,
and the writ petition is devoid of any merits and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
9. In support of his contention, the learned Standing
Counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in KARNATAKA RURAL
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Vs.
T.P.NATARAJA AND OTHERS 1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that application for change of date of birth can (i)
only be as per relevant provisions/regulations applicable; (ii)
even when cogent evidence exists, it cannot be claimed as a
matter of right; and (iii) same can be rejected on ground of
delay/laches, especially when made at fag-end of service
and/or when employee is about to retire on attaining the age
of superannuation
10. This Court, having considered the rival submissions
made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, is of
the considered view that challenging the letter dated
(2021) 12 Supreme Court Cases 27
27.04.2000 itself, the petitioner ought to have approached this
Court within a reasonable period of time. But, he did not do so
and kept silent till 2018, which itself is a sufficient ground for
dismissing the present writ petition on the ground of delay and
laches, as stated in the above said judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT'S (supra).
11. Further, from a perusal of the application of the
petitioner seeking employment, it is evident that the petitioner
himself with his own handwriting in words and figures
mentioned his date of birth as 15.08.1957. Once the
petitioner himself mentioned his date of birth in words and
figures by his own handwriting as 15.08.1957, this Court
cannot accept the contention of the petitioner that the same
had occurred by mistake. Firstly, the petitioner has not
challenged the letter dated 27.04.2000 addressed by the
Senior Regional Managar, Cherlapally and secondly, the
present writ petition is filed in the year 2018, after having kept
silent for 18 years. Moreover, in the employment application,
the petitioner had mentioned his date of birth as 15.08.1957
in his own handwriting in words and figures and the SSC
Certificate was not attached to the application.
12. As such, this Court is of the considered view that the
respondent authorities are justified in not considering the case
of the petitioner for changing his date of birth, more so, when
such a representation was made before the respondents after a
long delay of 19 years from the date of his appointment.
Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for
in the present writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is devoid
of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as
to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
Date: 02.02.2024
Prv
