Dismissed

Col K Malaiappan Retired v. Govt of India Rep by

Madras HC22 Jul 2024REV.APPL/55/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a review application filed by a retired Colonel seeking to alter his Date of Birth. The bench held that the application was barred as it was made at the fag end of services for someone who had already retired, and no error apparent on record was established.

What did the court decide?

Review Application No.55 of 2010 stands dismissed with no costs.

Col K Malaiappan Retired Vs Govt of India Rep… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

REV.APPL.No.55 of 2010 against WA.No.3954 of 2004

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 22.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶8

REV.APPL.No.55 of 2010 against

¶9

WA.No.3954 of 2004

¶10

Col.K.Malaiappan (Retd.)

¶11

... Petitioner Vs.

¶12

Government of India Rep. by Secretary to Government, Ministry of Defense, New Delhi-110 011.

¶13

Military Secretary, Army Head Quarters, DHG Post, New Delhi-110 011.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Review Applications filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of CPC, praying to review the order dated 11.11.2009 passed in WA.No.3954 of 2004.

¶16

For Petitioner : No Appearance *****

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/4

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

REV.APPL.No.55 of 2010 against WA.No.3954 of 2004

¶20

[Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. ]

¶21

The order of this Court dated 11.11.2009 passed in WA.No.3954 of

¶22

2004 is sought to be reviewed. The Division Bench of this Court, while confirming the order of the Writ Court made an observation that the writ petitioner had not given representation for his change of Date of Birth, within a period of two years as contemplated under the Rules. The application seeking alteration of date of birth cannot be entertained during the fag end of services. The petitioner retired from service on 31.07.1996. That being so, we are not inclined to entertain the review petition. That apart, the petitioner has not established any error apparent on record warranting consideration.

¶23

Accordingly, the Review Application stands dismissed. No costs.

¶24

[S.M.S., J.] [C.K., J.] 22.07.2024

¶25

kmi

¶26

Index : Yes Speaking order : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4

¶28

¶29

REV.APPL.No.55 of 2010 against WA.No.3954 of 2004

¶30

The Secretary to Government, Government of India Ministry of Defense, New Delhi-110 011.

¶31

Military Secretary, Army Head Quarters, DHG Post, New Delhi-110 011.

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/4

¶33

REV.APPL.No.55 of 2010 against WA.No.3954 of 2004

¶34

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. and C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

¶35

kmi

¶36

REV.APPL.No.55 of 2010 against WA.No.3954 of 2004

¶37

22.07.2024

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4

Col K Malaiappan Retired v. Govt of India Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Col K Malaiappan Retired v. Govt of India Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumara Rajah Muthiah School of Traditional Arts and Crafts Vs Secretary to the Government

The Regional Manager Vs S.K.Srinivasan

G. Baskaran Vs the Managing Director

The Pentecostal Mission Vs the Union of India, Rep. by

M/S.Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Ltd. Vs the State of Tamilnadu

P.Samiappa Gounder Vs the Regional Transport