The general legal principle is that an employer can consider a claim for correction of date of birth of an employee, in his service records, if he prefers an application within a reasonable time from the date of joining into the service. As to what would constitute a reasonable time, various case laws suggest that it is a decision that has to be taken on a case to case basis, taking into account various factors such as the bona fides of the claimant, his/her conduct, whether he/she would have obtained an unintended advantage while securing employment were the corrected date of birth taken as the actual date of birth, whether the employee is estopped from claiming a different date as his date of birth and the prejudice that would be caused to his juniors in service through an acceptance of the claim.
In Kerala Government Service, correction of date of birth is governed by GO (P) No. 45/91/P&ARD dated 30/12/1991. According to the said government order, after 30/12/1991, the correction of date of birth if any needed in the case of a Government employee shall be made within five years of one’s entry into service. In the case of those who have already crossed this limit, one year time from 30/12/1991 is allowed, provided they apply before the two years period preceding retirement, reckoned with reference to the date of birth as recorded in the service book.
A friend of mine asked me to send a copy of Kerala Maternity Benefit Rules, which according to him, is not available anywhere. So I’m uploading a scanned copy here, for everyone.
The Delhi High Court in Sonia Gandhi v. Government of NCT of Delhi, held that contract appointed employees working in public sector undertakings are entitled to leave of all kinds at par with regular employees, including maternity and sick leave. In that case, the court was concerned with contractual employees working in various hospitals established by the Government of NCT of Delhi and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, wherein there was large scale contract appointments. The court also highlighted that good governance would require the Government to ensure regular posts being sanctioned commensurate to the public need as it ill serves the interest of the society if requisite number of public posts are not sanctioned. In that case, the court also sanctioned equal wages at part with regular employees, and directed the government to frame a one-time regularisation scheme, to absorb the large number of contract labour working in government hospitals.
Benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are available only to ‘workmen’. If one is a manager or a professional, he is outside the ambit of the act. In ESI Corporation Medical Officer’s Assoication v. ESI Corporation, the Supreme Court held that a medical professional treating patients and diagonsing diseases cannot be held to be a ‘workmen’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The two judge bench consisting of KSP Radhakrishan and AK Sikri, therein drew a distinction between ‘occupation’ and profession’, and held that an occupation is a principal activity related to job, work or calling that earns regular wages for a person; and a profession on the other hand, requires extensive training, study and mastery of the subject, whether it is teaching students, providing legal advice or treating patients or diagnosing diseases. Hence, the court was of the opinion that professionals are not workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID Act.