Heard Sri v. Narasimha Goud

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction, particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, quash the impugned Proceedings No. P11255(1)12014- NLG, dated 29.1O.2014 altering the date of birth as 27 .O2.1958 and consequential Proc. No. P11693(1)2015- DVK, dated 01.09.2015 making the petitioner to retire from service prematurely and Proc. No. P2l756(1)/2016-NLG, dated 29.02.2016 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and in violation of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently the petitioner pray this Honble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service till 31 .05.2021 on which the petitioner would be reaching the age of 58 years along with all consequential benefits including wages the in the interest of justice and fair play. l.A.NO:1 OF 2016 (WPMP.NO:29090 OF 2016) Petition Under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High CoLrrt may be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service by suspending the impugned Proc. No. P11255(1y2014-NLG, dated 29.10 2014 and P11693(1112015- DVK, dated 01.09.20 15 pending disposal of the above writ p()tition in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel forthe Respondents : SRI PANAKANW SATISH KUMAR The Court made the following ORDER .;:*'. Y HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAXA \[RIT PETITION No. 23601 OF 2016 ORDER: Petitioner claimed to have joined the service of respondent - State-owned Corporation as driver on 18.03.1986 and reached up to the post of ADC uide proceedings dated

22.11.2014. It is his complaint, the 2"d respondent uide order dated 01.O9.2015 informed that he was to retire from scrvice with effect from 29.02.20 16 on the ground that his date of birth was 27.O2.1958. According to petitioner, his actual date of birth was 03.05.1963 and it was also recorded in Transfer Certificate, driving licence, etcetera. Hence, he is stated to have requested the 2,d respondent on 10.03.2012 to correct his date of birth as recorded in his service register from 03.05.1960 to 03.O5.1963. Thereafter, he made a representation, which was rejected ulde order dated 29.10.2104 by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, pursuant to the Application under Right to Information Act, dated 09.O3.2016, the 2"d respondent lurnished the following documents through registered letter dated 21.O3.2016:

1. Xerox Copy of T.C. No.26289I submitted at the time of joining.

2. Duplicate T.C. submitted for 2nd time.

3. Xerox Copy of Driving License No.10966/PVN6/ 1982. 2

4. Xerox Copy ofX Class certihcate No. 1693602.

5. Le tter of mt: made for the correction of date of tirth

6. Xerox Copy of Promotion order of ADC. 7 & 8. Xerox Copy of Doctor Certificate certi$ring date of birth.

9. X Class Marks Certificate is not available in th,: personal file It is the complaint of petitioner that his date of birth was corrected in service register from 03.05.196C to 27 .O2.1958 r,r,ithout anv notice and opportunity by the Depol Manager, who is not compctcnt to correct as per Regulation 19 ol APSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations 1966. Her ce, the \rery correction is without jurisdiction and in violation of pnnciples of natural justicc. It is the further case of petitioner that the 2nd respondent issued notice dated O7.08.2014 callirrg upon him to submit the record in support of date of birth ers 03.05.1963. Accordingly. he is stated to have submitted rrxplanation on

09.1O.2014, but however, the 2"d respondent passed the order dated 29- lO.2Ol1 stating that he had not prr>dr,rced any document in proof of date of birth and that the d:clared date of birth is 03.05.1960, which is not correct as all tho original certificates are \.ery much available in recorcl. Further the respondents states that since he was examined by the Medical Officer on 02.O7.1986, after his selection for the post of driver, -f-_.ijn"_.d_:eF 1,, 3 his age was certified as 28 arld that date of birth should be

27.O2.195a. The said action is nothing but arbitrary as the medical certificate and medical examination was done only in respect of finding out as to whether his physical htness is suitable to the post of driver or not, but not for assessment of age. Hence, considering the same for correcting my date of birth after long laps of time is nothing but arbitrary as weil as the contrary to the material available on record.

2. Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for petitioner. He submits that in similar circumstances, this Court in Writ Petition No. 16974 of 2OO9 held that medicai certihcate is only a fitness certificate but not age determination certificate and Writ Appeal No. 1O53 of 2011 filed against the said order was dismissed.

3. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation Sri Panakant5r Satish Kumar submits that petitioner declared his date of birth as 03.05.1960 as per his personal records, but he had not produced any school certificate to this effect at the time of appointment. Hence, in view of as per M.C.No. 39438, dated 27.O2.1986 issued by Superintendent, APSRTC Hospital, Tarnaka, his age was certified to be 28 as on 27.02.1986, thus his date of birth as per medical certificate should be 27.O2.1958. 4

4. Pcrused the record. Petitioner disputes correction of his age from 03.05.196O to 27.02.1958 in his fierwice Records as illegal zrnd arbitrary. It is the specific contention of respondent authoritics that petitioner declarcC his age as

03.05.1960 at the time of his appointment in service, but, as no dot:umenta4, support was provided in proof the reof, a Medical Board was constituted which determined his agc as 28 at the time of his appointment in 1986. It is to be not::d that though petitioner contends that he furnished Transfer C'ertificate (with Certihcate No. 26289 1) issued by Zilla Parishad Upper primary School way back in 1986, it can be seen front r:he material papers at Pagc No.17 that Transfer Certificate was obtained in 2014, stating that petitioner's date of birth was O3.O5.1963. yet another Transfer Certillcate (with same Certificatc Number) was placed at Pa;1e No. 15 of the material page, that is inl<-blotted and does not clearly show the date of birth in ljgures, except showing the '"vords Fifth May Nineteen Sixty.

5. Ile that as it may, this Court called for original records from the Corporation and while admitting the Writ Petition, passed order dated 30.08.2016 in W.p.M.p.No.29O9O of 20 16 as under: " 'fhis Court called for the original reccrd from the respondents and notice<I that the date of birth of the petitroner recorded rn the servicc register as 03.05.1960 and rs altered as It7.02.195g. In 5 his application dated 24.O2.86, after his appointment as casua-l driver, the petitioner gave a declaration stating that he is enclosing copy ol the Transfer Certificate, Employment Card and local candrdate certificates and if they are lound not correct, he would be ready for termination of the service, apart from taking criminal proceedings. The Transfer Certincate filed al that time clearly shows that as May, l960 and was studying 6'h class This evidence is sufficient as the said documents werc filed way back in 1986. In the circumstances, the petitioner shall be continued in service till he attains the age of superannuation by taking the date ol birth as 03.05.1960 until lurther orders."

6. Pursuant to the said order, the Depot Manager, Nalgonda issued Ofhce Order dated 16.02.2017 reinstating petitioner and directing the Personnel Oflice, Nalgonda to continue him in service till 31.05.2018 taking his date of birth I I as 03.05.1960. Now, learned counsel for petitioner submits that his client submitted representation dated lO.O3.2Ol2 enclosing thereto Xerox copies of school certificate and driving licence which reflects his date ofbirth as 03.O5.1963, hence, the same may be taken into consideration and accordingly, he shall be paid all the benefits from O1.06.2018 till he reaches 60 years as on 3I.05.2023. That submission does not hold water, for the anomalies pointed out in the paragraph supra. Further, it is settled law that corrections to Date of Birth at the fag end of career is not permissible. Petitioner had already retired from 6 F,qffiE j?# \"' service in 2018. Therefore, in view of the interrm order dated 30.08.20 16 directrng to continue petition,rr in service considering his date of birth as 03.05.1960, no frrrther orders are required ir-r the ',vrlt petition.

7. Accordingly, the Writ petition is ,lisp65g6 .1 i, terms of thc interim order. Needless to say, petitt oner is entitled to the differcnce of monetary/service benefits, il'any. from the date of premature retirement (0 I .03.20 1 6) till hr u,as taken on duty on 16.O2.2O17. No costs.

8. Conscquently, Misccllaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SREE RAMA MURTHY drpuw REGISTRAR sd/-x. \\ i , lsecrtoru oFFtcER \l The Joint Managing Director, Telangana State Ro&fransport Corporation' gui Bnauan Mr]sheerabad, Hvderabad' in" b"ii,i v.^aser, rsnrb, b;s Depot, Natgon_da. N algonda District iH X;ffi;i;off:J"', oro nLgio"'r Manaserl TSRrc Naleonda Resion' Naioonda. tfrJo"i,lt Manaqer, TSRTC, Bus Depot, Devarakond;r, Nalqonda District. d;"cUi; sni vlr.rAnnstMHA GouD' Advocate [oPtJCl il; cd iI 5Hi pAr.rArnrurVsnrtsn kutrrnn' Advocate IoPUC] Two CD CoPies To 1 2 3

4. 5. fr. 7. SA PVL HIGH COURT DATED:231O712025 ) //:, ,,, \: ,> L,. -1 eri Sl \ ll2 SEP ?6 Dr ,:)\^'t.",.-r// . \ .,2' ORDER WP.No.23601 of 2016 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. )4- f/