Allowed

P.Muthiah v. The Secretary to Government of

Madras HC27 Nov 2018WP/12835/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order rejecting a school teacher's application for correction of his date of birth. The Court held that the department's failure to affix the office seal on the original application was its own negligence and could not be used to defeat the employee's legitimate claim.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned order; direct respondents to process 09.06.2010 application on merits within three months without insisting on office seal.

P.Muthiah Vs The Secretary to Government of — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE : 27.11.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE S.VIMALA

¶5

W.P. NO. 12835 OF 2018 AND

¶6

W.M.P. NOS. 15074 & 15075 OF 2018

¶7

P.Muthiah .. Petitioner - Vs - 1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu School Education Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 9. 2. The Prl. Secretary & Commissioner for Revenue Administration Chepauk, Chennai – 5. 3. The Director of School Education DPI Compound, College Road Chennai – 6. 4. The Joint Director (School Education) DPI Compound, College Road Chennai – 6. 5. The Chief Educational Officer Karur Post & District. 6. The Chief Educational Officer Trichy. 7. The Headmaster Government High School Thethur Post, Trichy District. 8. The Headmaster Government High School G.Udaiyarpatty, Karur District. .. Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 4^th respondent dated 08.05.2018 in Na.Ka.

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

No.109695/C3/E2/2010 and quash the same and consequently direct respondents 2 to 4 to process and pass final orders on the application of the petitioner dated 9.6.2010 on merits enabling the petitioner to continue in service till 31.5.2020 and pay all consequential service and monetary benefits.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr. P.I.Thirumoorthy

¶12

For Respondents: Ms. P.Kavitha, GA (Edn.)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The impugned order dated 8.5.2018 passed by the 4^th respondent is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶15

The petitioner is working as B.T. Assistant (Maths) in the 7^th respondent High School. Though the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 4.9.1961, however, the same has been wrongly entered in the service register as 11.2.1960 based on the oral version given by the parents of the petitioner. To have the date of birth corrected in the service records, the petitioner approached the respondents well within the time of five years by filing the necessary application on 09.06.2010. However, the same has been rejected by the 4^th respondent on the ground that the application does not contain the office seal. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

¶16

The 4^th respondent has rejected the application of the petitioner taking into account Section 59 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Services) Act, 2016, which mandates receipt of application for correction in date of birth to be made within a period of five years from the date of entering into service along with the necessary enclosures. It is further evident from the impugned order that the application has been rejected for want of endorsement of the office to prove receipt of application within the prescribed period of five years.

¶17

It is the claim of the department that the original application did not contain the office seal and, therefore, the application of the petitioner for correction of date of birth was rejected. Affixing of office seal is the responsibility of the concerned office and not the responsibility of the petitioner.

¶18

However, to ascertain the veracity of the submissions and the date of filing of the petition, this Court directed the respondents to produce the record. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the records were produced, relating to the various communications between the various respondents. A

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

perusal of the file reveals that the main reason for rejection of the application stems from the non-affixture of seal in the original application submitted by the petitioner. Lapse on the part of the concerned authority in not affixing the seal on the original application cannot be put against the petitioner to defeat his legitimate claim. In such circumstances, the proceedings of the 4^th respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioner is hereby liable to be set aside.

¶21

Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the 4^th respondent is set aside. The writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 2 to 4 to process the application of the petitioner and pass final orders on the application of the petitioner dated 9.6.2010 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without insisting for office seal to be affixed on the original application of the petitioner. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶23

//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

GLN To 1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu School Education Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 9. 2. The Prl. Secretary & Commissioner for Revenue Administration Chepauk, Chennai – 5. 3. The Director of School Education DPI Compound, College Road Chennai – 6. 4. The Joint Director (School Education) DPI Compound, College Road Chennai – 6.

¶25

The Chief Educational Officer Karur Post & District.

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

The Chief Educational Officer Trichy.

¶28

+1 cc to The Government Pleader, Sr.No.81372

¶29

+1 cc to Mr.P.I.Thirumoorthy, Advocate Sr.No.81140

¶30

W.P. NO.12835 OF 2018

¶31

GMR(CO) CSL/08.01.2019

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

P.Muthiah v. The Secretary to Government of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Muthiah v. The Secretary to Government of

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

C.Thamizh Chelvi, Vs The Secretary to Govt.

V.Tamilselvi, Vs The Principal Secretary to the

Mrs. C.Jespheenammal, Vs The Commissioner

D.Ashok Kumar, Vs The Secretary

T.David, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Vijay Vs Chief Conservator of Foests