Dismissed

P.a.Hussain v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 May 2012RP/73/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a review petition filed by an employee seeking correction of his date of birth in service records. The earlier judgment held that without proof of the school admission register's contents, reliance could not be placed on it to alter the service records.

What did the court decide?

The review petition is dismissed; the date of birth remains 1.1.1954 as per service records.

P.a.Hussain Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF MAY 2012/18TH VAISAKHA 1934

¶5

RP.No. 73 of 2012 (Y)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT NO. WPC.21194/2011 DATED 28-11-2011

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/WRIT PETITIONER:

¶8

P.A.HUSSAIN AGED 54 YEARS,S/O.SRI.M.ABOOBACKER,ROLL NO.027 HMT ECCS LTD,NO.E 800,KALAMASSERY.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJASEKHARAN NAYAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA

¶12

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,CO-OPERTIVE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

3. HMT EMPLOYEES' CANTEEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO. 800 KALAMASSERY REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER-683503.

¶15

4. HMT MACHINE TOOLS LIMITED, KALAMASSERY REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 683 503.

¶16

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. G.GOPAKUMAR R3 BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE.

¶17

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/03/2012, THE COURT ON 08/05/2012 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

tss

¶19

P.N.RAVINDRAN , J.

¶20

R.P. No.73 OF 2012 IN W.P.(C) No.21194 OF 2011

¶21

Dated this the 8^th day of May, 2012

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This is a petition filed by the writ petitioner seeking a review of the judgment delivered on 28.11.2011 dismissing the writ petition.

¶24

The petitioner, working in a canteen run by the third respondent co-operative society, filed the writ petition seeking alteration of his date of birth in the service records, relying on Ext.P3 extract from the school admission register. By the judgment sought to be reviewed, the writ petition was dismissed holding that the school admission register cannot be relied on in

¶25

the absence of proof of its contents, to hold that the date of birth of the petitioner is 23.5.1956 and not 1.1.1954 as entered in the service records.

¶26

I heard Sri.M.Rajasekharan Nayar, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner, Sri.G.Gopakumar, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2,

¶27

RP No.73/2012 2

¶28

Sri.Jacob P.Alex, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent and Sri.Saji Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner contended relying on the unreported decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in O.P. No.4877 of 1997 that instead of considering the evidentiary value of Ext.P3 extract from the school admission register, this Court ought to have directed the third respondent to determine the correct date of birth of the petitioner taking into account Ext.P3. The learned counsel contended relying on rule 197 of the Kerala Co-operative Service Rules that the employer society is bound to maintain a service register in the prescribed form and that it should contain the date of birth of the employee as entered in the school admission register or the secondary school leaving certificate and therefore the employer is bound to examine the petitioner's request for correction of the date of birth in the service records.

¶29

The pleadings and the materials on record disclose that

¶30

the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P1 representation which was accompanied by the original of Ext.P3 extract from the

¶31

RP No.73/2012 3

¶32

school admission register, to correct his date of birth was rejected by the employer society and the said decision was communicated to the petitioner by Ext.P2 letter dated 14.1.2010. In that letter it was inter alia pointed out that in the application submitted by the petitioner for the post of Sweet Maker on 21.8.1988, his age was mentioned as 31 years, his date of birth as 1.1.1954 and that in the various other service records also the same date of birth was entered. The petitioner was informed that 24 years after his date of birth was recorded as 1.1.1954, Ext.P3 cannot be relied on to correct the date of birth.

¶33

Shorn of details, the main contention raised by the learned counsel for the review petitioner is that as the date of birth which is required to be entered in the service register is the date of birth as in the school admission register or the secondary school leaving certificate, the employer society was bound to examine Ext.P3 and to correct the date of birth in the service records to make it confirm to the school admission list. In my opinion the said contention is without any merit. The petitioner had no case till he submitted Ext.P1 representation that his date

¶34

RP No.73/2012

¶35

¶36

of birth is not 1.1.1954 as entered in the service records but 23.5.1956 as shown in Ext.P3. I have in the judgment sought to be reviewed considered the question whether any reliance can be placed on Ext.P3 school admission register to direct the employer society to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the service records. After a survey of the case law on the point and the documents produced on either side, it was held that the petitioner, who had never objected to his date of birth being reckoned as 1.1.1954 cannot at this belated stage, especially when proof of the contents of the extract from the school admission register is not forthcoming, have his date of birth corrected as 23.5.1956. After considering the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I am not satisfied that the review petitioner has made out any ground to review the judgment dismissing the writ petition.

¶37

The review petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

P.N.RAVINDRAN,

(JUDGE)

vps

RP No.73/2012 5

RP No.73/2012 6

P.a.Hussain v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.a.Hussain v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pk.Abdul Jabbar Vs the Secretary, Kseb & Another

C.M. Sakthivel Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority Cum Regional Transport Officer, Palakkad

Hassainar Vs the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram

Korea Electric Power Data Network Vs the Govt. of Kerala

Abdul Rasak Vs the Calicut University

Biju.T.P. Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kollam