K.P. MOHAMMED KOYA Vs. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL AND TRAINING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal ("CAT" for short) is the petitioner herein. Petitioner is working as Technical Director in the National Informatics Centre, Lakshadweep UT Centre. He joined the Lakshadweep Administration as Statistical Assistant. According to him, his date of birth as shown in the service book is not correct, and therefore, he submitted Annexure - A4 application before the Administration for correction of his date of birth. It is the contention of the petitioner that no action was taken by the Department, and, finally he had submitted Annexures - A8(a), (b) and (c ) representations before the Administration. Since no action was taken by the Department, he filed O.A. No. 813 of 2011 before the CAT and by Annexure - A11 order, CAT directed the first respondent to consider the representations of the applicant (A -7(a) and A10) for correction of his date of birth and pass orders. However, the Department, by Annexure A12 stated that since the petitioner resigned from the Administration in the year 1989 on acquiring appointment to the NIC, the matter being very old the application submitted in 1984 was not traceable.

(2.) BEFORE the Tribunal, the department took a contention that in so far as the application for correction of date of birth was not received by the Administration within five years as per Rules, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered.

(3.) THE petitioner submits that in so far as he had produced Annexure - A4 to the Secretary (Administration) and it is stated in Annexure - A12 that the said document is not traceable, it is not on account of any wilful laches on the part of the petitioner, but on account of the inaction of the Department that he was unable to get his date of birth corrected. But it is relevant to note that though the petitioner alleges that he had submitted an application (Annexure -A4) on 17 -3 -1984, no steps have been taken to pursue the matter, and finally he approaches the Tribunal only in 2011 and that too on the basis of certain representations which he had filed during 2009. It is stated that he took time to get his S.S.L.C. Book corrected. This we do not think is a proper explanation. If the petitioner had taken steps for correction of his date of birth within 5 years from the date of joining, definitely he would have pursued the matter immediately and not waited till 2011 to approach the Tribunal.