IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 39743 of 2003(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. C.BHASKARAN, CLASS-IV (RTD) KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITYU, RESIDING AT BHASKARA NILAYAM, CHEKKOD, KALLIYOOR P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDITIONAL PETITIONERS: 2. VILASINI.L., W/O.LATE C.BHASKARAN, BHASKARA NILAYAM, CHEKKOD, KALLIYOOR P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 3. PRAJEEDH BHASKAR, S/O.LATE C.BHASKARAN, -DO- 4. PRIYA BHASKAR, D/O. LATE C.BHASKARAN, -DO- 5. PRAVEEN BHASKAR.B., S/O.LATE C.BHASKARAN, -DO-. 6. PRAMODH BHASKAR.V., -DO-. *(ADDITIONAL PETITIONERS 2 TO 6 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.944/07 DTD. BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.P.M.BENZIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR. 2. THE CONTROLLER, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR. 3. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. RENJITH THAMBAN, SC, AGRL.UNTY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).No. 39743/03. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.29.6.96 BY R1. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.3.7.96 BY R1. P3. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.26.8.97 BY R2. P4. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.28.7.03 BY R1 TO R3. P5. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.16.8.03 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.39743 of 2003 ================== Dated this the 8th day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner originally started employment with the 1st respondent University as a casual Labourer in 1955. At that time, as proof of age, the petitioner produced his horoscope, in which the date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 10.12.1937. He submits that, later on, on the ground that the horoscope is not acceptable as proof of date of birth, he was directed to produce a medical certificate from a qualified medical officer regarding proof of age of the petitioner. Accordingly, he is stated to have obtained a certificate from the Government Hospital, Nemom, in which his age was certified as 30 years as on 1.1.1972. The petitioner claims that his date of birth was entered in the service records in accordance with the said certificate by his superior officer. Subsequently the petitioner's services were regularised as Class IV employee in 1977. Thereafter, he retired from service on 30.6.1996. The petitioner is now aggrieved by Ext.P3 and P4 orders, by which the period of w.p.c.39743/03 2 service between 1.1.1993 and 30.6.1996 has been excluded for the purpose of retirement benefits on the ground that his date of birth was wrongly recorded in the service book as 1.7.1941 instead of 10.12.1937, as result of which, his service beyond 1.1.1993, is over stayal beyond the actual retirement age. The petitioner therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “(i) To issue a Writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exts.P3 and P4 and quash the same. (ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to disburse the pensionary/retirement benefits due to the Petitioner for the period from 01.01.1993 to 30.06.1996 with interest forthwith; (iii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the Petitioner is entitled to count the period of service from 01.01.1993 to 30.06.1996 for the purpose of pensionary/retirement benefits. (iv) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the Petitioner is entitled to continue in service of the 1st Respondent till 30.06.1996 on the basis of the entry regarding date of birth in the service book of the Petitioner.” 2. According to the petitioner, it is as per directions of the superior officer he has produced medical certificate as proof of age and, therefore, the petitioner should not be made to suffer on account of the same. 3. The University has filed a counter affidavit stating that w.p.c.39743/03 3 the then Professor and Head of Instructional Farm, Vellayani, was the person responsible for the wrong entry of the date of birth in the service records, he is no longer in service and he cannot be proceeded against for recovery of the loss caused to the University. The University claims to have acted in accordance with the Government circular in the matter. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. Whether it is because of the petitioner's fault or not his date of birth has been wrongly entered in the service book. It remains a fact that according to the petitioner, his date of birth is 10.12.1937. Therefore, in the guise of unacceptability of horoscope as proof of date of birth, he cannot be given a date of birth later than what he himself claims to be the actual date of birth. The petitioner himself does not dispute the fact that his actual date of birth is 10.12.1937. That being so, the petitioner cannot now contend that his service from 1.1.1993 to 30.6.1996 which is a period of over stayal based on his actual date of birth, should be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits due to him. Therefore, while confirming Exts.P3 and P4 orders, I direct that the salary already paid to the petitioner for the period of w.p.c.39743/03 4 overstayal shall not be recovered from him. 6. After the judgment was dictated, the counsel for the petitioner points out that the original petitioner is no more and additional petitioners 2 to 6, who are the legal heirs of the original petitioner, have come on record as legal heirs. In the above circumstances, the judgment would be applicable to additional petitioners 2 to 6. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge