VISAKHAPATNAM DOCK LABOUR BOARD. versus E. ATCHANNA AND ORS.

VISAKHAPATNAM DOCK LABOUR BOARD. versus E. ATCHANNA AND ORS.

Respondents, having entered service between 1961-1969, sought alteration of date of birth only after notice of superannuation and beyond the five-year period stipulated by the Government of India Notification dated 30.11.1979, as incorporated in Note 5 to Fundamental Rule 56(m). Such delayed requests are barred, and the High Court's direction for medical assessment at the interim stage was improper and prejudicial to the appellant.

Parties
Appellant: Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board; Respondents: E. Atchanna and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 February 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Interim Order of Andhra Pradesh High Court
Outcome
Appeals allowed; High Court's interim order set aside.
Legal Topics
Change of Date of Birth, Service Records, Procedural Requirements, Superannuation
Service Law Change of Date of Birth Service Records Procedural Requirements Superannuation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board

Appellant

E. Atchanna and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Interim Order of Andhra Pradesh High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents are entitled to alteration of date of birth in service records after long delay and after serving notice of retirement
  2. 2 Whether High Court was justified in directing medical board assessment at interlocutory stage despite procedural limitations

Ratio Decidendi

Respondents, having entered service between 1961-1969, sought alteration of date of birth only after notice of superannuation and beyond the five-year period stipulated by the Government of India Notification dated 30.11.1979, as incorporated in Note 5 to Fundamental Rule 56(m). Such delayed requests are barred, and the High Court's direction for medical assessment at the interim stage was improper and prejudicial to the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; High Court's interim order set aside.

Orders

  • The impugned order dated 10th October 1995 in Writ Appeal Nos. 1024, 1025, and 1026 of 1995 is set aside.
  • No order as to costs.