Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.27 seconds)Section 20 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Union Of India & Anr vs M.M. Sarkar on 8 December, 2009
6. In view of above, request of applicant for correcting his date of birth cannot be entertained at this belated stage. Moreover, order dated 12/16.4.2010 would not give any fresh cause of action to the applicant because it was passed pursuant to the directions given by this Tribunal in OA No.393/2010 decided on 9.2.2010 to decide his representation, therefore, his representation was decided as directed by the Tribunal. It would be relevant to refer to the latest judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of U.O.I. Vs. M.K. Sarkar, reported in 2010 (2) SCC 58, wherein it has been reiterated that limitation has to be counted from the date of original cause of action and stale matters should not be entertained. It was held as follows:-
D.C.S. Negi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 11 April, 2008
8. While dealing with the question of limitation in the Tribunal, Honble Supreme Court recently observed in the case of D.S. Negi Vs. U.O.I. & Others ( SLP (Civil) No.7956/2011 CC No.3709/2011) decided on 11.3.2011 as follows:-
State Of U.P. And Ors vs Smt. Gulaichi on 25 July, 2003
5. The law is well settled that in matters of correction in date of birth delay is fatal as held by Honble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Others Vs. Gulaichi (Smt) reported in 2003 SCC (L&S) 908. The respondents in the said case had sought correction in the date of birth at the verge of retirement. It was held by the Honble Supreme Court that Court/Tribunal should not normally entertain petition/suit field by the employee concerned for extension of age of retirement on the basis of such correction. Court should keep in mind that any direction for correction of date of birth of a public servant may adversely affect chances of promotion of those junior to him. Period within which correction if prescribed under statutory rules or in absence thereof should be followed and in the absence of such rules or instructions, correction should be sought at least within a reasonable time. In the said case service book was signed by the respondent. It was thus held that the date mentioned in service book was not incorrect. It was further observed as follows:-
Section 19 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Vishakhapatanam Dock Labour Board vs E. Atchanna & Ors on 1 February, 1996
Similarly in Viskhapatnam Dock Labour Board Vs. E. Atchanna and Others reported in JT 1996 (3) SC 6. The respondents therein had applied for correction in date of birth after more than 25 years, when they received notices for superannuation. It was held by Honble Supreme Court that vide Notification dated 10.7.1979, respondents were required to take steps within 5 years form the date of the Notification and that the Single Judge was wrong in giving directions to the appellant to refer the respondents to the medical board for ascertaining their age.
1