Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (4.00 seconds)Section 20 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs Harnam Singh on 9 February, 1993
It has categorically been held by Hon'ble Supreme
court in the case of Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh reported in
AIR 1993 Supreme Court 1367 that correction of date of birth in
service record has to be done within the period prescribed only.
Esha Bhattacharjee vs Mg.Commit.Of Raghunathpur Nafar ... on 13 September, 2013
13. On the question of delay and bar of limitation, reference
may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Esha
Page No.8
Bhattachargee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar
Academy and Others, (2013) 12 SCC 649, after discussing the
entire case law on the point of condonation of delay, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has culled out certain principles as under:-
Union Of India & Anr vs M.M. Sarkar on 8 December, 2009
i. Union of India & Others Vs. M.K. Sarkar (2010) 2 SCC 58:-
Thressiamma Jacob & Ors vs Geologist,Dptt.Of Mining & Geology ... on 8 July, 2013
ii. Jacob vs. Director of Geology and Mining, (2008) 10 SC
115 that:- The courts/tribunals proceed on the assumption,
that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation.
Secondly they assume that a mere direction to consider
and dispose of the representation does not involve any
`decision' on rights and obligations of parties. Little do
they realize the consequences of such a direction to
'consider'. If the representation is considered and
accepted, the ex-employee gets a relief, which he would
not have got on account of the long delay, all by reason
of the direction to `consider'. If the representation is
considered and rejected, the exemployee files an
application/writ petition, not with reference to the original
cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection of
the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. A
prayer is made for quashing the rejection of
representation and for grant of the relief claimed in the
representation. The Tribunals/High Courts routinely
entertain such applications/petitions ignoring the huge
delay preceding the representation, and proceed to
examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this
manner, the bar of limitation or the laches gets
obliterated or ignored.
Punjab &Haryana High Court At ... vs Megh Raj Garg & Anr on 20 May, 2010
18. On merit also, applicant has no case. On the point of
correction in date of birth, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh Vs. Megh Raj
Garg and Another (2010) INSC 414 has held as under:-
Union Of India vs C.Rama Swamy And Ors on 9 April, 1997
19. Similarly in Union of India Vs. Rama Swamy and Others, AIR
1997 SC 2055 the Supreme Court held that "the date of birth can
be changed only if there was a bona fide mistake". It was also
Page No.14
held that "the principle of estoppel will apply and hence when
the Government servant had indicated a particular date of birth
in his application form or any other document at the time of
employment, the Court should not change that date of birth.
The ratio of the above decision shall apply with greater rigidity in
U.P. because here the 1974 Rules specifically provide that no
representation shall be entertained regarding change of date of
birth in any circumstances whatsoever".
State Of T.N vs T.V. Venugopalan on 3 August, 1994
In the case of State of Tamilnaidu Vs. T.N. Venugopalan
reported in 1994 (6) S.S.C. 302, it has been held by Hon'ble
Supreme Court that it is impermissible for an employee to seek
correction of his date of birth in the service record at the fag end
of service.
State Of U.P. And Ors vs Smt. Gulaichi on 25 July, 2003
It has further been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme court in
the case of State of U.P Vs. Gulaichi reported in 2003 (6) SSC 483
that the date of birth cannot be changed at time of retirement
or after the time prescribed.