Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing Sundaramurthy vs The Chief Secretary on 13 August, 2015

A.Somasundaram vs The Secretary To Government on 20 February, 2017

13. Further, in the unreported Division Bench Judgement of this Court in SUNDARAMURTHY v. THE CHIEF SECRETARY [W.P.No.24989 of 2015 dated 13.08.2015], the Division Bench has elaborately dealt with all these aspects relating to the alteration of date of birth and the line of cases decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard and it has been held time and again that the application for correction of date of birth is also to be looked into from the point of view of the concerned Department and the employees engaged therein. The other employees have expectations of promotion based on seniority and suddenly, if such change is permitted; it causes prejudice and disturbance in the working of the Department. It is, therefore, quite correct for the State to insist that such Applicationx must be made within the time provided in the rules, say, as five years, as in the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

A.Somasundaram vs The Secretary To Government on 20 February, 2017

13. Further, in the unreported Division Bench Judgement of this Court in SUNDARAMURTHY v. THE CHIEF SECRETARY [W.P.No.24989 of 2015 dated 13.08.2015], the Division Bench has elaborately dealt with all these aspects relating to the alteration of date of birth and the line of cases decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard and it has been held time and again that the application for correction of date of birth is also to be looked into from the point of view of the concerned Department and the employees engaged therein. The other employees have expectations of promotion based on seniority and suddenly, if such change is permitted; it causes prejudice and disturbance in the working of the Department. It is, therefore, quite correct for the State to insist that such Applicationx must be made within the time provided in the rules, say, as five years, as in the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

A.Somasundaram vs The Secretary To Government on 20 February, 2017

13. Further, in the unreported Division Bench Judgement of this Court in SUNDARAMURTHY v. THE CHIEF SECRETARY [W.P.No.24989 of 2015 dated 13.08.2015], the Division Bench has elaborately dealt with all these aspects relating to the alteration of date of birth and the line of cases decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard and it has been held time and again that the application for correction of date of birth is also to be looked into from the point of view of the concerned Department and the employees engaged therein. The other employees have expectations of promotion based on seniority and suddenly, if such change is permitted; it causes prejudice and disturbance in the working of the Department. It is, therefore, quite correct for the State to insist that such Applicationx must be made within the time provided in the rules, say, as five years, as in the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

U Rajasekaran vs Ut Of Puducherry on 28 May, 2025

14. Furthermore, in the unreported Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court dated 13.08.2015 in Sundaramurthy v. The Chief Secretary (W.P. No. 24989 of 2015), the Court dealt in detail with the legal principles governing the alteration of date of birth, including the line of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject. It was consistently held that applications seeking correction of date of birth 11 OA No.310/00737/ 2022 must also be examined from the perspective of the concerned department and its functioning. Such changes, if allowed belatedly, can adversely impact the expectations of other employees regarding promotions and disrupt the administrative structure. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable for the State to require that such applications be submitted within the time limit prescribed under the relevant rules such as the five-year period applicable in the present case.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1