IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 20622 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- T.A.POULOSE, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY, THOTTAKKARA HOUSE, VETTIKKUZHI, CHAIPANKUZHY, KALADY PLANTATION, ATHIRAPPILLY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.N.SANJITH SRI.JAISON JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED ATHIRAPILLY ESTATE, KALADY PLANTATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. MANAGER, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED, ATHIRAPPILLY ESTATE, KALADY PLANTATION. ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA FOR R1 SRI.TERRY V.JAMES FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 20622 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is employed with first respondent as a tapper. He entered service in the year 1970. The date of birth entered in the service records is 2.8.1951. 2. According to the petitioner, the correct date of birth is 28.12.1954, as evidenced by Ext.P1. By Ext.P3 dated 19.1.2009, he sought for correction of his date of birth. This was declined as per Ext.P4 stating that since the petitioner had not sought for a correction of his date of birth within five years from his entry into service, petitioner’s application cannot be considered in the light of the Government order which prescribes a time frame of five years from entry into service for considering such request. Ext.P4 is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents affirming that as per Ext.P5 Government order, which is applicable, request for correction of date of birth should have been made within five years from entry into service or within one year from the date of W.P.(C) No. 20622/09 2 the order, namely Ext.P5 dated 30.12.1991. Belated request cannot be considered. 4. I heard Sri.M.N.Sanjith, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Joseph Kodiyanthara, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. The time frame prescribed under Ext.P5 has been held to be mandatory by this Court on several occasions. The employer would be justified in declining to consider the request made by the petitioner for correction of his date of birth beyond the time frame prescribed in the order. 6. In the present case, petitioner entered service in the year 1970. Even going by the extended time mentioned in Ext.P5, he should have made a request in 1992. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Ext.P3 was only a reminder and the request was made earlier. It is averred in the writ petition that the first request was made in August 1992. 8. I am not inclined to accept this case. No such earlier request has been placed on record. Even the details of the same are W.P.(C) No. 20622/09 3 not disclosed in Ext.P3. The averment made in the writ petition that the first request was made in August 1992 seems to be an after thought in the light of Ext.P5. I find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. It is made clear that nevertheless the petitioner shall be paid wages for the period during which he has actually worked inclusive of the period beyond the age of retirement on the strength of the interim order passed by this Court. V.GIRI, JUDGE vps