IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

&

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

THURSDAY, THE 23

RD

DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946

OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 24.07.2023 IN OA NO.469 OF

2022 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:

1 UNION OF INDIA

REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION

AND BROADCASTING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SHASTRI

BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001

2 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PRASAR BHARATI BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA,

COPERNICUS MARG NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001

3 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

ALL INDIA RADIO, AKASHVANI BHAVAN, SANSAD MARG,

NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001

4 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF DOORDARSHAN

DOORDARSHAN BHAVAN COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI,

PIN - 110001

5 THE NODAL PUBLIC GRIEVANCE OFFICER

(THE JOINT SECRETARY) FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS

& PUBLIC GRIEVANCES, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND

BROADCASTING, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001

6 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL,

DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043

7 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL,

AKASHVANI, ALL INDIA RADIO, VAZHUTHAKADU P.O

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

BY ADVS.

R.V.SREEJITH, SCGC

RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:

SUNNY JOSEPH

AGED 58 YEARS

ASSISTANT ENGINEER DOORDARSHAN KENDRA,

2024/KER/34876

OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024

2

KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 043

(PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

(ENGINEERING), AKASHVANI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM),

RESIDING AT KALLIYADICKAL HOUSE, TC 12/757,

MADANKOVIL LANE, MUTTADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.,

PIN - 695025

BY ADVS.

M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR

SEEMA KRISHNAN(S-1457)

T.D.SUSMITH KUMAR(K/65/2004)

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.05.2024,

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2024/KER/34876

OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024

3

“C.R”

AMIT RAWAL & EASWARAN S., JJ.

------------------------------------

OP (CAT) No.83 of 2024

-------------------------------------

Dated this the 23

rd

day of May, 2024

J U D G M E N T

Easwaran, J.

Respondents in Original Application No.469/2022 before

the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench are

before this Court in the present Original Petition. The Original

Application was filed by the respondent herein seeking to

challenge Annexures-A14, A15, A17, A19, A21, A24, A25, A28

and A31 orders. The grievance of the applicant before the

Central Administrative Tribunal was that the petitioners herein

rejected his request made by him for correction of date of birth

entered in the service records.

2.The facts pleaded in the Original Application show

that the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal

entered service as an Engineering Assistant on 07.11.1989. At

the time of his appointment, the date of birth entered in the

service records as per the entries in the SSLC Book was

2024/KER/34876

OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024

4

01.06.1964. Later, the applicant claimed that his actual date of

birth is 02.07.1964. Further, it is contended that the said fact

came to the knowledge of the applicant only when he took a

copy of the birth certificate on 10.04.2007. Immediately

thereafter, he approached the State Government for correction

of the date of birth in the SSLC records, which was also

accepted on 27.06.2007. Later, the applicant claims that the

entries in his SSLC Book was corrected as per the order dated

13.01.2012 and consequent to the correction in the SSLC Book,

the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal

submitted representation to the Director of All India Radio,

Vazhuthakadu on 16.7.2013 produced as Annexure-A13 before

the Central Administrative Tribunal. The representation was

thereafter answered on 5.8.2013, which is evident from

Annexure-A14. Though in Annexure-A14 representation was

forwarded, the authorities prima facie entertained an opinion

that since the applicant has sought for correction of date of

birth in the service records after five years after the date of

entry into service, the same is not in accordance with the

2024/KER/34876

OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024

5

instructions contained in DoP&T Office Memorandum

No.19017/2/92-Estt(A) dated 19.05.1993. Despite this, the

representation was forwarded for further consideration. After a

series of inter-departmental communications finally by

Annexure-A24 dated 04.02.2015 the Deputy Director

(Administration), India’s Public Service Broadcaster Directorate

General, All India Radio, New Delhi addressed to the Director of

All India Radio, Thiruvananthapuram informing him that the

application for correction of date of birth in the service records

of the respondent/applicant herein stood rejected and the

decision of the competent authority may be communicated to

the respondent/applicant. Later, on 09.03.2015, the request

for replacement of Aadhar card submitted by the

respondent/applicant was also rejected, since the date of birth

entered in the service records as well as the document now

sought to be replaced were found to be different.

3.Consequent to the above proceeding, it was noticed

by order dated 06.05.2015 that the respondent/applicant had

not registered himself in the bio-metric attendance system.

2024/KER/34876

OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024

6

Therefore, he was further directed to register himself for the

bio-metric attendance system immediately. To the said order,

the respondent/applicant replied under Annexure-A27 dated

22.05.2015 that his application for correction of date of birth in

the service records is still pending and that the date of birth in

the Aadhar Card and other related documents was corrected

based on the corrected date of birth. After a series of further

proceedings, by Annexure-A28 dated 06.01.2020, it was

ordered that it is not possible to accept the documents with the

change of date of birth, once the date of birth in the service

records had been recorded. However, to ascertain as to

whether there is a change in the existing Rules, the matter was

placed before the Director General. In the meantime, the

petitioner also invoked the mechanism provided for public

grievance, which was also turned down by order dated

04.08.2022, which is evident from Annexure-A31.

4.Immediately after passing Annexure-A31 order, the

respondent/applicant approached the Central Administrative

2024/KER/34876

OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024

7

Tribunal with the present Original Application on which the

order impugned was passed.

5.The respondents in the Original Application/the

petitioners herein entered appearance and contested the claim.

Petitioners/respondents raised their objections to the belated

claim of the respondent/applicant for correction of the date of

birth. It was specifically contended that the applicant’s request

for change of date of birth was only after completing 23.5 years

of regular service and therefore it was highly belated.

6.Based on the pleadings on record, the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench concluded that the

change of the date of birth in the service records would only

alter the period of service by 32 days and consequently, the

applicant’s retirement would stand deferred from 31.5.2024 to

31.7.2024. It was further held that no additional burden will

have to be borne by the respondents and accordingly, the

Original Application was allowed vide Ext.P6 order dated

24.07.2023. It is aggrieved by the aforesaid order that the

Union of India and others are before this Court invoking the

2024/KER/34876

OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024

8

power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India.

7.We have heard Sri.R.V.Sreejith, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners/respondents, and Sri.M.P.Krishnan

Nair, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/applicant.

8.The learned counsel for the petitioners/respondents

would contend that the Tribunal erred egregiously in

entertaining a belated claim for correction of date of birth in the

service records. As per the prevalent rules, the applicant ought

to have raised a claim within a period of five years from the

date of entering into service. It was also submitted that even

the claim before the Tribunal was not maintainable, since it was

a belated claim as the cause of action for filing the Original

Application arose in the year 2015, and therefore the present

Original Application could not have been entertained by the

Tribunal. He also further relied on Rule 56 of the Fundamental

Rules, wherein the application for correction of date of birth

should have been made within a period of five years from the

date of entering into service. Reliance was placed on the

2024/KER/34876

OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024

9

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v.

Harnam Singh [(1993) 2 SCC 162] . Further, he also placed

reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas [(2011) 9 SCC 664] .

Thus, he prayed for setting aside the order of the Central

Administrative Tribunal allowing the Original Application.

9.On the other hand, Sri.M.P.Krishnan Nair, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/applicant, made

a fervent plea before this Court that his client cannot be found

fault with for having approached the authorities in the year

2013 (5.8.2013). He further argued that only after getting the

date of birth corrected in the SSLC Book, which was only on

13.1.2012 that he could have moved before the authorities for

getting the service records corrected. He further took this

Court to Annexure-A3 order passed on 27.6.2007, wherein

sanction was accorded by the State Government to correct the

SSLC Book of the applicant. It is because of delay between

27.6.2007 and 13.01.2012 that the applicant was disabled from

moving before the authorities for correction of date of birth in

2024/KER/34876

OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024

10

the service records. Sri.M.P.Krishnan Nair would further refer

to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent and

would contend that the Original Petition filed is not

maintainable because of want of proper authority authorising

the incumbents to file the present Original Petition. He would

also further argue that there was no genuine bona fide mistake

on the part of his client in not approaching the authorities

within the time prescribed. The delay between 2007 to 2012,

according to the learned counsel for the respondent/applicant,

ought to have been excluded for the purpose of calculating the

period as prescribed under the Rules. Still further, he would

submit that at this point of time, the respondent/applicant is

now required to submit the corrected copies of Aadhar Card

and PAN Card for the purpose of processing pension claim.

Therefore, the learned counsel would request this Court to take

note of the mitigating circumstances and seek to sustain the

order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

10.We have considered the rival submissions raised

across the bar.

2024/KER/34876

OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024

11

11.Before going into the comparative merits of the claim

raised by the respondent/applicant before the Tribunal, we are

constrained to note that the Tribunal, despite the specific bar

under Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal’s Act,

1985, had chosen to entertain the Original Application, which

was highly belated. Section 21 of the Central Administrative

Tribunal’s Act reads as follows:

“21. Limitation.—

(1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,—

(a) in a case where a final order such as is

mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of

section 20 has been made in connection with

the grievance unless the application is made,

within one year from the date on which such

final order has been made;

(b) in a case where an appeal or

representation such as is mentioned in clause

(b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been

made and a period of six months had expired

thereafter without such final order having

been made, within one year from the date of

expiry of the said period of six months.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-

section (1), where,—

(a) the grievance in respect of which an

application is made had arisen by reason of

any order made at any time during the period

of three years immediately preceding the

2024/KER/34876

OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024

12

date on which the jurisdiction, powers and

authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable

under this Act in respect of the matter to

which such order relates; and

(b) no proceedings for the redressal of such

grievance had been commenced before the

said date before any High Court,

the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal

if it is made within the period referred to in clause

(a), or, as the case may be, clause (b) of sub-

section (1) or within a period of six months from

the said date, whichever period expires later.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-

section (1) or sub-section (2), an application may

be admitted after the period of one year specified

in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or, as

the case may be, the period of six months

specified in sub-section (2), if the applicant

satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause

for not making the application within such period.”

12.It may be noted that sub-Section (3) of Section 21

begins with a non-obstante clause wherein it was incumbent

upon the respondent/applicant to have shown cause before the

Tribunal to have the application entertained, despite a delay

being caused. With this legal requirement, when we perused

the Original Application filed by the respondent herein, which is

produced as Ext.P1, there is no explanation caused on the

2024/KER/34876

OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024

13

delay that has occurred in approaching the Tribunal. On a

contrary, there is an assertion that the application is within the

period of limitation. Still further, the applicant has chosen to

calculate the period of limitation from the date of Annexure-A31

order.

13.We are afraid that the approach of the

respondent/applicant was not correct. The Tribunal clearly

erred in entertaining the application under Section 19 of the

Central Administrative Tribunal's Act contrary to the statutory

requirement under Section 21. Admittedly, the cause of action

arose on 04.02.2015 when request for correction of date of

birth of the respondent/applicant in the service records was

declined. The proceedings, which led to the issuance of

Annexure-A31, had absolutely no bearing or correlation to the

cause which was already declined under Annexure-A24 order

dated 04.02.2015. The Tribunal failed miserably to appreciate

the fact that the cause projected under Annexure-A30, which

was rejected under Annexure-A31, was different from that

contained under Annexure-A24. In Annexure-A30, the

2024/KER/34876

OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024

14

respondent/applicant only requested for acceptance of the

Aadhar Card with the corrected date of birth for the purpose of

registering himself in the bio-metric attendance. This has

absolutely no relation to the claim for correction of date of birth

in the service records. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold

that the application filed before the Central Administrative

Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench was clearly barred by limitation and

hit by Section 21 and the Tribunal could not have entertained

the said application.

14.Be that as it may, even we assume that the

application was within time, we are not persuaded to accept the

arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent/applicant. It must be noted that the applicant

entered into service on 07.11.1989. At the time of entering

service, his date of birth recorded was 01.06.1964. The

request for correction of date of birth in the SSLC Book was

ordered on 27.06.2007 and the same was corrected on

13.01.2012. There is no explanation as to the delay which

occurred between 2007 to 2012. Even assuming that the said

2024/KER/34876

OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024

15

period of delay could have been excluded, even then, the

applicant’s claim for correction of date of birth in the service

records could not have been entertained by the authorities.

The respondent/applicant had also not entertained all the steps

he had to undertake to have an expeditious issuance of the

corrected SSLC Book after Annexure-A3 order.

15.It is now settled law that the correction of date of

birth in the service records cannot be claimed as a matter of

right. It has been held on numerous occasions by the Supreme

Court as well as by the High Courts that belated claim for

correction of the date of birth cannot be entertained by the

courts. In State of UP v. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya [2005

(6) SCC 49], it has been categorically held by the Supreme

Court that an application for correction of date of birth should

not be dealt with by the Courts, Tribunals or the High Courts,

keeping in view only the public servant concerned. It was

further held that any direction for correction of the date of birth

of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, in as

much as others waiting for years, below him for their respective

2024/KER/34876

OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024

16

promotions are affected in this process. Even otherwise, it

would definitely be a burden on the Exchequer.

16.In a Bench decision of this Court in Ravindran v.

State of Kerala & Others [ILR 2000 (2) Kerala 55] , it was

held by this Court that a government servant cannot apply for

correction of date of birth beyond the stipulated period. It was

further held that in the absence of any provision in the Rules for

correction of date of birth, the general principle of refusing

relief on the ground of latches or stale claims is generally

applied by the courts and the Tribunals. It is nonetheless

competent for the Government to fix a time limit in the service

rules, after which no application for correction of date of birth

of a Government servant can be entertained.

17.The question as to whether the correction of date of

birth could be entertained after the stipulated period of five

years based on the Civil Services (General Conditions) Rules,

1981 (Maharashtra) came up for consideration before the

Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and another v.

Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble & Others [(2010) 14 SCC

2024/KER/34876

OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024

17

423]. It was held that the spirit and the intention of such rule

is reflected in a series of judgments of the Supreme Court. And

that an application given after a lapse of 28 years after entering

service cannot be considered by the Courts or the Tribunals.

18.In Punjab and Haryana High Court V. Megh Raj

Garg [(2010) 6 SCC 482], it was categorically held that once

the date of birth is entered in the service records in respect of

an employee, it becomes conclusive. On facts of that case,

considering the time limit of 2 years provided under the

relevant rules, the Apex Court proceeded to hold that the

application submitted for correction of date of birth after 2

years cannot be entertained.

19.To cite a few more precedents on this point, we can

find the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat and

others V. Vali Mohd. Dosabhai Sindhi [2006(6) SCC 537],

State of Madhya Pradesh V. Premlal Shrivas [(2011) 9 SCC

664] and Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others V. Chhota

Birsal Uranw [(2014) 12 SCC 570] . The ratio culled out from

the said decisions is that the courts/tribunals should not

2024/KER/34876

OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024

18

entertain the request from the employee for correction of date

of birth in service records at the fag end of the career. However,

this rule is not without exception. Unless there is clinching proof

and unimpeachable evidence to show the date of birth of an

employee has been wrongly entered in his service record, and a

denial of permission to correct the said record would

tantamount to denial of justice, the courts have permitted such

corrections. When we apply the afore principles to facts, it

becomes evident that there was a statutory embargo to apply

for correction of date of birth beyond 5 years. The prudency of

the employer in prescribing the said embargo being sacrosanct

and is not open for judicial review by courts. Here, the

application for correction of date of birth was given in the year

2013 and the decision to reject the same was taken in the year

2015. But, since the Original Application was filed only in the

year 2022 and the applicant was due to retire during 2024, it

becomes clear that he had approached the Tribunal at the fag

end of his career. Thus it was not within the domain of the

Tribunal to have formed an opinion that even if the request for

2024/KER/34876

OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024

19

entertaining the application for correction of date of birth is

allowed, it will not cause any prejudice to the Department. In

holding so, the Tribunal completely ignored the settled

principles laid down by the High Courts as well as by the

Supreme Court.

The result of the above discussion leads to the inevitable

conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to succeed.

Accordingly, Ext.P6 order dated 24.7.2023 in O.A.No.469/2022

on the files of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam

Bench is thus set aside. Resultantly, the Original Application

filed by the respondent herein would stand dismissed. No order

as to costs.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

Sd/-

EASWARAN S.

JUDGE

jg

2024/KER/34876

OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024

20

APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 83/2024

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS/ANNEXURES

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.180/00469/2022 OF THE

HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,

ERNAKULAM FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN

Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE DATGED

10.04.2007 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KARIMANNOOR

GRAMA PANCHAYAT

Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENATION DATED 12.04.2007

SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE MINISTER FOR

EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA FOR CORRECTION OF

DATE OF BIRTH

Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.06.2007 OF THE

GOVERNMENT OF KERALA FOR CONDONING THE DELAY IN

SYBMITTING APPLICATION

Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

NO.K.DIS.EX.BB2/4855/2010/CGE DATED 13.01.2012 OF

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER FOR GOVERNMENT

EXAMINATIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.07.2009 ISSUED

BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPT.,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ALONG WITH ITS TYPED COPY

Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03.08.2009

SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE SUPERINTENDING

ENGINEER (HOD), DOORDARSHAN KNDRA,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM LONG WITH ITS TYPED COPY.

Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 14.08.2009

ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, PRASAR

BHARATI, DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, TRIVANDRUM

Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.08.2009

SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE SECRETARYU,

GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.

Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.01.2010 ISSUED

BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. GENERAL EDUCATION

DEPT., TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT.

EXAMINATIONS, TRIVANDRUM ALONG WITH ITS TYPED

COPY

Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST PAGE OF THE CORRECTED SSLC

BOOK SHOWING THE DATE OF BIRTH AS 02.07.1964

Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE AADHAR CARD OF THE APPLICANT

SHOWING THE ATE OF BIRTH AS 02.07.1964

Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT OF THE APPLICANT

SHOWING THE DATE OF BIRTH AS 02.07.1964

2024/KER/34876

OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024

21

Annexure A13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.07.2013

SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE DIRECTOR, ALL

INDIA RADIO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Annexure A14 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.TVM-1(2)/2013-S

DATED 05.08.2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS

Annexure A15 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.TVM-1(2)/2013-S/1128

DATED 05.08.2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS

Annexure A16 TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED 01.11.2013

SUBMITTED BY TEH APPLICANT TO THE RESPONDENTS

Annexure A17 TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER LETTER DATED 11-10/12-

11/2013 ISSUED BY THE ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL

(PRO.) TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Annexure A18 TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER LETTER DATED 14.02.2014

SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE ADDL.DIRECTOR

GENERAL(P), ALL INDIA RADIO, TRIVANDRUM

Annexure A19 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.TVM-1(2)/2013-S/682

DATED 26.02.2014 ISSUED BY THE ADDL.DIRECTOR

GENERAL, ALL INDIA RADIO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, ALL INDIA RADIO, NEW DELHI

Annexure A20 TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER LETTER DATED 02.12.2014

SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE DIRECTOR

GENERAL, ALL INDIA RADIO, NEW DELHI

Annexure A21 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER

NO.TVM-21(2)/2012-S(SJ)/3577DATED 23.12.2014

ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (P) TO THE DIRECTOR

GENERAL, ALL INDIA RADIO, NEW DELHI

Annexure A22 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.Z-

20025/9/2014-ESTT.(AL) DATED 03.11.2014 ISSUED BY

THE MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCE &

PENSION

Annexure A23 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM

NO.11013/9/2014-ESTT(A-III) DATED 21.11.2014

ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC

GRIEVANCES & PENSION.

Annexure A24 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.14/1/2015-S-IV(B)/44

DATED 04.02.2015 OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

ADMINISTRATION(E), DIRECTORATE GENERAL, ALL INDIA

RADIO, NEW DELHI FORWARDED TO THE APPLICANT AS

PER ENDORSEMENT NO.TVM-21(2)201-S(SJ) DATED

16.02.2015

Annexure A25 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM

NO.10(1)2015-A1/DKT/(S)/5288 DATED 09.03.15

ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL (E),

DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

2024/KER/34876

OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024

22

Annexure A26 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM

NO.10(1)2015-A1/DKT(SJ) DATED 06.05.2015 ISSUED

BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL (E), DOORDARSHAN

KENDRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Annexure A27 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY REPRESENTATION DATED

22.05.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT IN RESPECT

OF ANNEX.A26

Annexure A28 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.7(1)2017/A1/DKT/(SJ)

DATED 06.01.2020 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

GENERAL (E), DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, TRIVANDRUM TO

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, DOORDARSHAN, NEW DELHI

Annexure A29 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 02.11.2020

SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

GENERAL(E), DOORDARSHAN KENDRA,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REQUESTING TO CONSIDER HIS

REQUEST FOR CORRECTION OF DATE OF BIRTH IN THE

SERVICE BOOK.

Annexure A30 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE

APPLICANT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT ON 12.11.2021 AND

THE APPEAL DATED 11.03.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE

APPLICANT BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY.

Annexure A31 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.7(1)2017/A1/DKT/944

DATED 04.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

GENERAL (E), DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, TRIVANDRUM TO

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL(E), DOORDARSHAN KENDRA,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE APPLICANT REJECTING HIS

CLAIM OF CORRECTION OF DATE OF BIRTH IN THE

SERIVCE BOOK

Annexure A32 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM

NO.55/14/2014/P&PW(C) PART-I DATED 29.11.2016

ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC

GRIEVANCES & PENSION, NEW DELHI REGARDING

MANDATORY REGISTRATION IN BHAVISHYA PORTAL.

Annexure A33 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM

NO.55/14/2014/P&PW(C) PART-I DATED 21.01.2021

ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC

GRIEVANCES & PENSION, NEW DELHI REGARDING

MANDATORY REGISTRATION IN BHAVISHYA PORTAL.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 03.01.2023

FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN OA NO.180/00469/2022

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 27.01.2023 FILED

BY THE APPLICANT IN OA NO.180/00469/2022

Annexure A34 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 25-08-2023

ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT

Annexure A35 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05-01-2023 ISSUED

2024/KER/34876

OP (CAT) NO. 83 OF 2024

23

BY THE SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, ALL INDIA

RADIO REGARDING TRANSFER ON PROMOTION OF THE

APPLICANT

Annexure A36 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 03-01-2023

ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO DY. DIRECTOR (E)

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT DATED

15.05.2023, FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN THE ABOVE

OA

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY FOT HE ADDITIONAL REJOINDER DATED

12.06.2023 FILED BY THE APPLICANT IN OA

NO.180/00469/2022

Annexure A37 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.A-21/2017-

IC/E.IIIA DATED 28-11-2019

Annexure A38 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO,.F.V.22018/3/2023--BAE

DATED 23.02.2023 OF THE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF

INDIA

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.07.2023 IN OA

NO.180/00469/2022, OF THE TRIBUNAL

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

Exhibit R1(a)True copy of the DoPT Office Memorandum No.

19017/1/2014-Estt(A-IV) dated 16-12-2014

Exhibit R1(b)True copy of the email dated 11-08-2023

forwarding the Order dated 24-07-2023 to the

petitioners

Exhibit R1(c)True copy of the Memorandum dated 27-02-2024

issued by the Administrative Officer

Exhibit R1(d)True copy of the reply dated 29-02-2024 submitted

by the respondent herein to the Memorandum

Exhibit R1(e)True copy of the representation dated 16-03-2024

submitted by the counsel for the respondent

herein to the petitioners

Exhibit R1(f)True copy of the representation dated 08-05-2024

submitted by the respondent herein to the

petitioners

Exhibit R1(g)TRUE COPY OF THE AFORESAID LETTER DATED 13-05-

2024 WITH REPLY ENDORSEMENT WITH TYPED COPY

2024/KER/34876