1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI WRIT APPEAL (MD) No.83 of 2011 M.O.Koya .. Appellant/Petitioner vs. 1.Indian Overseas Bank, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Central Office, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2. 2.The General Manager (Personnel), Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2. 3.The Chief Manager, Personnel Administration Department, Regional Office, Tirunelveli. ... Respondents/Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of this Court dated 08.11.2010 made in W.P.(MD)No.2953 of 2008. PRAYER IN WP[MD]NO.2953/08 & MP[MD]NO.1/08: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the third respondent in F.No.R./177/PAD/56 dated 16.02.2008. Quash the same and direct the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in his service records in accordance with the petitioner's SSLC Book. For appellant : Mr.R.Subramanian For respondents : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.RAJESWARAN, J) This Writ Appeal has been filed by the Writ Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.2953 of 2008 against the final order passed by this Court on 8.11.2010 dismissing the W.P.(MD)No.2953 of 2008. 2. The case of the petitioner/appellant herein in W.P.(MD)No.2953 of 2008 is that he joined the Bank of Tamil Nadu Ltd., as a clerk and he singed declaration showing his date of birth and educational qualification along with a copy of his SSLC Book. According to SSLC Book, his date of birth is 14.9.1948. In the year 1990, the Bank of Tamil Nadu Ltd., merged into the respondents/Indian Overseas Bank under a scheme of amalgamation. At that time of merger, as requested by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 respondents bank, he gave his Bio-Data wherein he has clearly mentioned his date of birth as 14.9.1948. 3. In his confidential reports, which also carried his appraisal, through out his career with the respondent bank, his date of birth has been declared as 14.9.1948 only. While so, during the first week of January 1948, he was surprised to receive a communication from the Staff Training College, Chennai to attend a two days pre-retirement counselling. On enquiry, to his shock and surprise, he found that the respondents have taken his date of birth as 14.3.1948 and fixed his date of superannuation as 31.3.2008. Since the date of birth has been wrongly entered into the books of the respondents bank as 14.3.1948 instead of 14.9.1948, he sent a representation dated 5.2.2008 to the respondents to correct date of birth. He had also enclosed all the necessary certificates in proof of that. But the third respondent bank rejected his request in their proceedings dated 16.2.2008. Challenging the same, the Writ Petition was filed. 4. In the said Writ Petition, counter was filed by the respondents bank supporting the order of the rejection made by the bank, on the ground that the date of birth was correctly entered in the books and further, the representation to correct the error was highly belated and the petitioner should have been vigilant and made a representation in the beginning itself. 5. Opposing the contention made by the respondent bank, a reply affidavit was also filed by the petitioner in the Writ Petition reiterating his stand. 6. This Writ Petition was dismissed on 8.11.2010 by this Court mainly on the ground that the representation made for the correction of the date of birth was highly belated. Moreover, the Court also found that when the petitioner had signed the application for his pension on 5.3.2008, he himself had accepted the date of birth as 14.3.1948. Aggrieved by the final order of the learned single Judge of this Court, dismissing the Writ Petition, the above Writ Appeal has been filed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that what has been sought for by the appellants herein before the bank was not an alteration of the date of birth but only a correction of the entry as found in the SSLC Book submitted by him. It is his case that the service sheet of the South India Bank Limited would show his date of birth as 14.3.1948 but the source of entry of the date of birth is referred to as the SSLC Book. The SSLC Book entry would show his date of birth as 14.9.1948. Therefore, the writ petitioner did not care to make an issue of the same. Further, he adds that the seniority list is not circulated to the Staff and hence, the petitioner was not aware of the entry made by the respondent bank about his date of birth in this list to enable him to make a representation. Therefore, according to him, when all the records including the first page of the SSLC Book shows the date of birth as 14.9.1948, the respondents bank ought to have corrected the same on his representation made on 5.2.2008 and the rejection of his request to correct the date of birth was bad. But, according to him, the learned Judge has not adverted to this aspect and failure has vitiated the final order passed in the Writ Petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would further add that taking into consideration the difficulties expressed by the respondent bank, the petitioner is prepared to forego the monetary benefits and he would be satisfied with the service benefits only for that period and nothing else. Therefore, he submits that the respondents may be directed to correct the date of birth and extend the service benefits alone to the petitioner/appellant herein for the period from 15.3.2008 to 14.9.2008. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank would contend that if there was any discrepancy in entering the date of birth, the petitioner/appellant should have got it corrected at the time of joining the South India Bank or immediately thereafter. Having failed to do so, it is not open to the petitioner to dispute the same at this distance of time, that too, on the verge of retirement. 10. Further, according to him, even as per the circular of the seniority list, the petitioner had not taken care to verify his date of birth entry and take appropriate remedial measures. Hence, according to him, the Writ Petition was rightly dismissed by this Court, which does not warrant any interference by this appellate forum. 11. We have considered the rival submissions carefully. 12. It is a case where the petitioner when he joined the South India Bank Ltd., Tirunelveli, had the entry of date of birth in the service sheet of the Bank as follows:- "14.3.1948 as per the S.S.L.C. first Page" 13. His S.S.L.C. First page produced by the petitioner shows his date of birth as 14.9.1948. Obviously, there is an error committed by South India Bank Limited while entering the date of birth of the petitioner in their service sheet. To prove his date of birth as 14.9.1948, the petitioner/the appellant has produced the following documents before this Court where his date of birth was shown only as 14.9.1948:- (i) a copy of the Passport of the petitioner; (ii)Life Insurance Premium Receipts of the petitioner; (iii) While applying for DPN loan on 13.9.2002 to the respondent bank, his date of birth was shown only as 14.9.1948; (iv) Family pension particulars available with the respondent Indian Overaseas Bank Ltd.; (v) Birth Certificate of the petitioner; (vi) A copy of the PAN Card of the Income Tax Department; 14. Apart from the above, the Application form for pension submitted by the petitioner to the respondent bank on 5.3.2008 would also show his date of birth as 14.9.1948. 15. Further, the respondent also did not dispute the date of birth as 14.9.1948. But their case is that his representation is highly belated. The learned Judge also held that it is highly belated. 16. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the actual date of birth of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 petitioner is 14.9.1948, as evidenced from the various records produced before this Court by the petitioner and available with the respondent bank. Hence, we hold that it is purely a mistake on the part of the respondent bank to have not correctly entered the date of birth i.e. 14.9.1948. This wrong entry ought to have been corrected by the Department on the representation made by the petitioner as other records with the respondent bank have the correct date of birth as 14.9.1948. However, since it has been pointed out by the respondent bank that the petitioner should not be given the benefit of the correction of the date of birth, for not having taken steps at the earliest point of time and such belated correction would cause prejudice to the bank, we are of the considered view that this case will have to be considered on its facts. 17. Hence, we direct the respondent bank to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 14.9.1948, instead of 14.3.1948, for limited purpose of extending the service benefits to the petitioner only and not for any other benefits. We also hasten to add that this should not be quoted as precedent by any one in future and this order has been passed considering the peculiar facts and the nature of this case with particular reference to the documents available with the Respondent Bank. 18. In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed to the limited extent of directing the respondents to correct the date of birth entry of the petitioner/appellant in the records of the respondents bank as 14.9.1948 instead of 14.3.1948, only for the purpose of "extending the service benefits alone for that period" to the petitioner/appellant and not for any other benefits. No order as to costs. asvm Sd/- Assistant Registrar[CO] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2. 2.The General Manager (Personnel), Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2. 3.The Chief Manager, Personnel Administration Department, Regional Office, Tirunelveli. +1 cc to Mr.M.P.Senthil, Advocate SR.No.7680. +1 cc to Mr.R.Subramanian, Advocate SR.No.7907. W.A.(MD) No.83 of 2011 Dated:23.3.2011 4P/6C RPB 18.04.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/