The High Court · 2025

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to continue in service till the date of attaining the superannuation as per date of birth i..3., 1oto1l1964, pending disposal of the wrrt petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHD ISLAMUDDIN ANSARI Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR SERVICES-I The Court made the following: ORDER I I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK trIRIT PETITION No.1760 0F 20i24 ORDER: This Writ petition is frled under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: "...to issue appropriate Writ or any other order or direction pa-rticularty one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus Jechring the action of the 2"d Respondent in directing the petitioner not t attena the office from O1.O2.2O24 on the ground '[trt ;;"_g tre age of supera,nuation as per date of 6r*r i.e., 1o.or. r963 instead of 10.01. 1964, without. issuing any notice ;ha;o;;er, as a-rbitrary, illegal, contrary to service jurisprudence u"a "iorutio. of we[ settled principal of natural justice aIId to pass..." p"titio".; *;;iJ;; "

2. Heard Sri Mohd.lslamuddin Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government for Services-I for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. perused the materia_l available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as an ofrrce Sub-ordinate on 23.06.1992 and at the time of his appointment, the petitioner submitted his Transfer Certificate (T.C.) dated 29.l2.lg7|, wherein his date of birth was clearly mentioned as 10.01.1964. 2 Further, on 20 Ol'2O24' respondent No'2 had orally informed the petitioner that upon attaining the age of superannuation' he office from would no longer be required to attend th€ clarifred that O1.O2.2024 6nr1'2rds ln response' the petitioner his date of birth is '10'01'1964" and therefore' the date of his superannuation u'ouid be in January 2025' ard not in January 2024. However. respondent No'2 informed that according to the service records, the petitioner's date of birth was recorded as '10.01.1963'. As a result' the petitioner would attain the age of in January 2024, whidn is tor-ally arbitrary' the Petitioner submitted a representatlon to respondent No 2 on 2O'OI'2O24 requesting for correction of his date of birth from'10'01'1963' to'10'01'1!t64'' However' without considering the sarne, respondent No'2 insisted the petitioner not to attend offrce ftorn Ol 'O2 '2024 ' It is further submitted that respondent No' 1 issued G'O'Ms'No' 106' dated 24.O5.2O22, u'herein the posts of respondent No' 1-Department were reorgar-rized betrveen the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh and State of Telangana' Consequently' the petitioner suPerannuatlon ConsequentlY. \i 3 wp_176O 2024 was allotted to State of Telangala. In the said proceedings also, the petitioner's date of birth was mentioned as '10.01.1964'. Therefore, as per Transfer Certificate (T.C.) dated 29.12.1977 and as per the proceedings in G.O.Ms.No. 106, dated

24.05.2022, the petitioner's date of birth is '1O.O1.1964' only but not '10.01.1963'. As such, there is no justification on the part of respondent No.2 in insisting the petitioner not to attend the office from O1.O2.2O24 and the same is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to direct respondent No.2 to continue the petitioner in service until he attains the age of superannuation in January, 2025.

4. Per contr&, learned Government Pleader for the respondents submitted that at the time of the petitioner's initial appointment as a Cleaner, his date of birth was recorded in his service register as 10.01. 1963 and the sarne was also confirmed by the petitioner duly endorsing it with his signatr.rre. Subsequently, by rounding his actual date of birth i.e.,

10.01.1963, the entry was altered to 10.01'1964. Thereafter, the same was once again struck down and recorded as 4 wp 1760 202a

10.01.1963 (petitioner's original date of birth). Further, during bifurcation, u,hile the petitioner was wc,rking at IPM, A.P.Gollapudi, Vijayawada, the APSRTC instructed employees to submit their options along with releva.nt certifrcates. Accordingly, tl.re petitioner submitted a photocopy of his Transfer Certificate, in which, at Sl. No.O7, the reference to "eighth class'' r,r,as struck off and 'ninth class" lr,as written in its place. Howeve r, the Roman numeral (VIII)B rerrained unqltered suggesting a clear manipulation of the Transfer Certificate. It is further submitted that in the service register, the date of birth of the petitioner rnas recorded as 10.01.1963 and the said entry in the service register is made much prior to the evidence produced by the petitioner i.e., Aadhar, Pan Cards etc., which was subsequently updated. Further, the petitioner was relieved from service r-rpon attaining the age of superannuation on the afternoon of 31,.01.2024 and intimation to this effect was also communicated to his residential address and the same was also acknowledged by his daughter. It is further submitted that the petitioner has raised the age dispute at the fag end of service i I I I 5 with a mala fide intention and correction of the petitioner's date of birth at this stage is contrary to the Rules. Therefore, learned Government Pleader prays this Court to dismiss the present Writ Petition. In support, learned Government Pleader relied on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in UnTon oJ Ind.ia u. Hantam Singht.

5. This Court has taken note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties.

6. A perusa-l of record discloses that the petitioner was initially appointed as Cleaner uide proceedings No. l91/E.3/gl, dated 23.O6.1992 and his services in the said cadre were regularized w.e.f. 24.06.1992 uide proceedings, dated

13.04.1994. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as Ofhce Subordinate on 01.06.2003. The main issue in the present Writ Petition pertains to the date of birth of the petitioner, which he claims to be 10.01.1964, thereby, he would retire from service on 31.0 1 .2024 only. In this context, it is pertinent to refer to the petitioner's service register, wherein his ' tsss 121 scc 162 6 date of birth was clearly recorded as 10.01.19€,3 at the time of his initial appointment, which was duly ccnfirmed by his signature. Horvever, the records indicate that the said date of birth u,as altered to 10.01. 1964 and thereaftr:r, yet again as

10.01.1963 u.ith the previous alteration being s:ruck down. It is also relevant to note that in G.O.Ms.No.106, da,ted 24.O5.2022, the petitioner's date of birth was shown as 10.01.1964, however, this does not override the original etrtry recorded in the service register, w'hich was also confirmed by the petitioner himself at the time of his appointment. Moreove:r, the petitioner was notified ol his superannuation date as 3l .O I .2024 based on the original date of birth and the same was ackr:owledged by his family. Despite the same, the petitioner has not provided any valid grounds for disputing this notice.and is seeking correction of his date of birth at the fag end of his service. In this regard, it is pertinent to observe that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hanwnn Singh's case (1 supra), categorically held that 'A Gouentment seruant tttho makes an application for cotrection of date of birth begond the time, so ftxed, therefore, cannot claim, as { I

4. 7 PICJ a matter of rigllt, the correction of his date of birth euen if he has good euidence to establbh that tLE recorded date of birth ts clearlg erroneous'.

7. In Bunt Standard Co. Ltd. and others a. Dlnabandhu Majumdar and anotheP, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph No. 1O held as under 'Entertainment by High Courts of writ applications made by employees of the Government or its instrumentalities at the fag end of their services and when they are due for retirement from their services, in our view, is unwarranted. It would be so for the reason that no employee can claim a right to correction of birth date and entertainment of such writ applications for correction of dates of birth of some employees of Government or its instrumentalities w.ill mar the chances of promotion of their juniors and prove to be an undue encouragement to the other employees to make sirnilar appl.ications at the fag end of their service careers rvith the sole object of preventing their retirements when due. Extraordinary nature of the. jurisdiction vested in the High Courts under Article 226 of t}re Constitution, in our considered view, is not meant to make employees of Government or its instrumenta.lities to continue in service beyond the period of their entitlement according to dates of birth accepted by their employers, placing reliance on the so-called newly-found material." , (1995) 4 SCC r72 a

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary & Commissioner, Hofiie... a. R. Klrubaka,rans, has held that request lor rectihcation of date of birth has to be made at the earliest point of time. The law laid down in Kintbakara,n's (3 supra) has also been followed by the Apex Co'trt in its several other subsequent judgments. Relevant obsr:n ations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kirubako'ran's ccse (3 sz.tpra) are as "An application for correction of the date of birth shculd not be dealt with by the Tribunal or the High Court keeping in vieru only the public servant conccrned. It need not be pointed out that any .;uch direction for correction of thc date of birth of the public servant ,toncerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for j'ears, b< lorv him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. S('me are likely to suffer irrepar;rblc injury, inasmuch as, because of the corection of the date of birth, thc ofircer concerned, continues in officer, in some cases for years, wrthin which time many officers who are below him in seniority $'aiting for their promotion, may lose the p()motion for ever. Cases ane not unknoivn when a person accepts appoin ment keeping in view t}Ie datc of retirement of his immediate senior. Accrlrding to us, this is an important aspect, which cannot be lost sight ofby the Court or the Tribunal q hile examining the grievance of a public senant in respect of correction of his date of birti. As such, unless a clea.r case on the basis of materials rvhich can be held to be conclusive in nat,rre, is made out by the respondent, the Court or the Tribunal shottld not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim only 3 AIR 1993 SC 264i t I 9 PX,J plausible. Before any such direction is issued, tie court or t}re Tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned ald his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the period w.ithin which such application has to be filed, than such apptication must be liled within the time, which can be held to be reasonable. The apptication has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus in on the applicant, to prove about the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book. In many cases it is a part of the stratery on the part of such public servants to approach the court or the Tribunar on the eve of their reti-rement, questior[ng the correctness of the entries in respect of their dates of birth in the service books. By this process, it has come to the notice of this Court that in many cases, even if ultimately their applications are dismissed, by virtue of interim orders, they continue for months, after the date of superannuation. The Court or the ?ribunal must, therefore, be slow in granting an interim relief for continuation in service, unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated, but if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and merely caused injustice to his immediate junior." I I

9. Coming to the case on hand, the delay on the part of the petitioner in raising the issue of his date of birth, particularly at the fag end of his service, raises doubt about the validity/veracity of his claim. Furthermore, the petitioner has failed to provide any valid/legal justification or evidence to 10 support his claim of alteration of his date of birth, particularly since he hacl previously confirmed the originai entry. Thus, viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any merit in the present Writ Petition and the same is [able to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, this Writ petition is dismissed, Miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ petition, shall stands closed. There shall be no order as to costs. I To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.T. TIRUMALA DEVI GISTRAR AS OFFICER '1. One CC to SRI MOHD TSLAMUDDTN ANSAR|, Advocare IOPUCI 2. fwo CCs to Gp FOR SERVICES_|, High Court for the State of Telangana at 3. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] BSR BS +y HIGH COURT DATED: 0710312025 I ORDER WP.No.1760 of 2024 2' i fi-q nA $.(' a .d 'l::. ., -'.r ,:-, .1gF_o * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS @ e{