IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5355 of 2010(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.V.JOSE, PALAKKAL HOUSE, VALIYAKULAM, UDAYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (H.R.) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., MARKETING DIVIION, SOUTHERN REGION, INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, 139, NENGUMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI. 2. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE, AT BOMBAY. BY ADV. SRI. E.K. NANDA KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 5355 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was an employee under the second respondent. He retired from service on 31.5.2007, based on the recorded date of birth in his S.S.L.C. Book as also the date of birth recorded at the time of his entry in service. The date of birth of the petitioner in his S.S.L.C. Book and as entered in his service records is 3.5.1947. Contending that his actual date of birth is 3.5.1949, the petitioner had approached the competent authorities for getting his date of birth corrected. However, prior to such correction, he attained the age of superannuation and admittedly retired from the service of the second respondent on 31.5.2007. The case of the petitioner is that subsequently his date of birth was corrected by the competent authority. Earlier, prior to his attaining the age of superannuation, he had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 7615 of 2007. The said Writ Petition was dismissed as per Ext.P5 judgment. The matter was taken up in appeal as W.A. No.1885 of 2007. This Court, while affirming Ext.P5 judgment, disposed of the Writ Petition, as per W.P.(C) NO. 5355/2010 2 Ext.P6 judgment, observing that it would be open to the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation before the authorities producing the corrected date of birth and to seek appropriate decision based on the same. But, the request of the petitioner was rejected and he again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 33509 of 2007. The said Writ Petition was dismissed as per Ext.P9 judgment. The decisions of this Court in Exts.P5 and P6 were taken into consideration while dismissing the said Writ Petition and upholding the rejection of the petitioner's representation made pursuant to Ext.P6 judgment. In fact, the contentions unsuccessfully raised by the petitioner in the said Writ Petition are canvassed again in this Writ Petition. I am of the view that in the light of Ext.P9, merely because the petitioner has preferred Ext.P10 subsequent to the dismissal of W.P.(C) No. 33509 of 2007, this Writ Petition cannot be entertained. In the circumstances, taking into account Exts.P5, P6 and P9, I am of the view that there is no merit in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ W.P.(C) NO. 5355/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO. 5355/2010 JUDGMENT 18th February, 2010 W.P.(C) NO. 5355/2010 4