Karnataka High Court
Siddagangaiah T vs State Of Karnataka on 7 September, 2022
Author: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO.14108/2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
Siddagangaiah T.,
S/o. late Sri Thimmaiah,
Aged about 57 years,
Working as Valve Man,
Tumkur City Corporation,
and Residing at; Uppara Halli,
Behind Anjaneya Temple, S.S.Puram Post,
Tumkur District - 572 102.
... Petitioner
(By Sri.Subramanya Bhat M., Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Urban Development Corporation,
Vikas Soudha, 4th Floor,
Bengaluru - 01,
Represented by the Secretary.
2. Director of Municipal Administration,
Vishweshwaraiah Towers, 9th Floor,
Vidhana Veedhi, Bengaluru - 01.
3. Commissioner,
Tumkur City Corporation,
Tumkru - 572 101.
... Respondents
(By Smt. M.C.Nagashree, AGA for R1 and R2
Sri R.Subramanya, Advocate for R3)
2
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to call for the service record of the
petitioner from the office of the R3 and quash Official
Memorandum bearing No.THU MA PAA/SIBBANDI/CR-53/2006-
07 dated 01.2022, a copy of the same is produced as Annexure-
C issued by the R3 to the extent the same relates to the
petitioner and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for 'Orders', this day, the
Court, made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the Official Memorandum dated 01.2022 at Annexure-C issued by respondent No.3, wherein, petitioner's date of retirement is shown as '31.07.2022.' The petitioner has also sought for quashing of the Endorsement at Annexure-G, whereby respondent No.3 has submitted that the request of alteration of Date of Birth taking note of the educational testimonials is impermissible in light of stipulation in Section 5 of the Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act' for short) while further stating at Annexure-G that request for 3 alteration must be made within a period of three years from the date of joining.
2. The petitioner submits that his actual date of birth is '22.07.1965' and not '23.07.1962'. It is submitted that the date of birth has been wrongly taken note of resulting in Endorsement at Annexure-G. Reliance is placed on the Transfer Certificate at Annexure-A, wherein, the Date of Birth is mentioned as '22.07.1965'. Further, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relies on the communication of respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 dated 16.02.2022, wherein a statement is made that at the time of making entry in the service record, while passing the order of regularization though the Transfer Certificate was submitted mentioning date of birth as 1965, in light of the mistake of the office staff, instead of mentioning the year of date of birth as 1965 in the service register, it was wrongly mentioned as 1962. Accordingly, the relief sought for has been prayed for.
4
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 has submitted that the relief sought for is impermissible in light of the stipulation in Section 5 of the Act and whether the entry made in the service register is by mistake or otherwise, any request for alteration is required to be made within a period of three years of joining date in terms of Section 5(2) of the Act. It is further submitted by placing reliance on the service register, original of which was submitted before this Court that the date of birth is shown as 21.07.1962.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent- State submits that the communication by respondent No.3 dated 16.02.2022 was rejected as per the communication dated 22.06.2022 by placing reliance on Section 5 of the Act. It is further submitted that question of alteration of date of birth cannot be permitted at this belated point of time, even if it is found that the entry in the service register was made by mistake. This Court by the order dated 29.07.2022 had summoned 5 the original records. The learned Government Advocate has produced the Transfer Certificate Register and the School Admission Register. The Transfer Certificate Book containing office copy is perused and the same would indicate the date of birth in the record as 22.07.1965. The Admission Register produced by the State at Sl.No.105, wherein, the name of the petitioner is mentioned as Siddagangaiah T., the date of birth is shown as 22.07.1965 (Both the Admission Register as well as the Transfer Certificate Book produced in original are returned after noticing the entries made).
5. Irrespective of the recommendation made at Annexure-E, once the date of birth is entered in the service record, in terms of Sub Section 5 of the Act, no requisition for change can be considered after the period of three years in terms of Section 5(2) of the Act.
6. Accordingly, on that sole ground, after noticing the entry in the service register, question of permitting alteration of date of birth at the instance of the petitioner at 6 this belated point of time does not arise. The petitioner even if there was any genuine reason, could not have approached this Court at the belated stage of attaining superannuation. It is also noticed that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited Vs. T.P. Nataraja & Ors. reported in AIR OnLine 2021 SC 747 after considering the legal aspect has arrived at the same conclusion that there is no question of consideration of any request beyond from the time prescribed under Section 5(2) of the Act.
7. Insofar as the contention that the petitioner was not aware of the entry in the service register and was made aware of the same only when Notice at Annexure-C was issued, such contention cannot be accepted in light of the petitioner having affixed his signature in coloumn 10 of the service register. Infact, this aspect of the matter has not been averred. When the petitioner has affixed his signature in the service register, question of accepting his assertion that he was unaware of entry in the register regarding his 7 date of birth does not arise. Inspection of the original Admission Register of the School as well as copy of the Transfer Certificate maintained in duplicate by the Educational Authorities which are summoned before this Court would also indicate the date of birth of the petitioner to be 23.07.1962.
8. Though affidavit is filed by the Commissioner, Tumkuru City Corporation, we find that the averment made in Annexure-E though has been rejected by the Government, the same is the reason for the present litigation having been instituted and the Court also passing an interim order and extending the same till date. Accordingly, the Commissioner to bear nominal cost of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) payable to the Legal Services Authority for the observation made at Annexure-E, which otherwise was not necessary.
Accordingly, petition is rejected.
8It is to be noticed that continuation of the petitioner beyond the period of 31.07.2022 was only by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court. Accordingly, in light of dismissal of the writ petition, petitioner would not be entitled for any service benefits for the period of continuance after 31.07.2022. However, if the petitioner has actually worked after 31.07.2022 till date when order of dismissal was passed, the petitioner is entitled for basic of the pay scale applicable to the post.
Taking note of the same, the Authorities may also proceed to take note of the observation and settle his pension and not keep the same pending.
Needless to state that the order passed regarding extension of his tenure by way of interim order and payment of salary as ordered herein would not operate as a precedent in other matters.
Sd/-
JUDGE PN