The High Court · 2025

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 lssue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of l\/andamus declaring the brder of the respondent No.2 in Rc. No.1626/2012-Estt. Dated 2s-11'20'i 2 retiring the petitioners from service without any justification, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution o1' lndia and also declare that the 2nd respondent has no power or authority to change the date of birth which is; recorr ed in the service register of the petitioners more than two decades bacll and sr:t aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petition,:rs in service till they attain the age of supera'tnuation as per the.-.date of rirth errtered into petitioners service register at tho time of their appointment rand pa1 all the benefits, back wages, grant costs. l.A. NO: 5 OF PMP. NO: 51640 OF 2017) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit f led in s upport of the writ petition, the High Court ma'v be pleased to extend the benefit of orders passed in WPMP.No. 1817812C16 in WP.No. 1386712015, dt 25 06.2016 and suspend the impugend proce:edings Rc.No. 162612012-E:;tt. dt. 2 5.1 1.20'1 2 issued by the respondent in the intr,rrest of justice. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(V/PMP. NO: 3699 OF 2017) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the crrcumst;ances stated in the affidavit {iled in support of the writ petition, the High Court n ray be pleased direct the res;ponderrts to continue the petrtioners in service by r,;uspending the impugned terminaticn order of the respondent No-2 in Rc. No.'1626/2012-Estt. Dated 25.1 1.',1012. Counsel for the Petilioner : SRI B.V.RAM NARESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1 : GP FOR WOMEN WELFARE Counsel for the Resoondent No.2 : ADL ADV GENERAL Counsel for the Resoondent No.3 : GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following: ORDER l1 (1 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA trIRIT PETITION No. 3124 OF 2Ol7 ORDER: Petitioners challenge the order dated 25-ll-2o12 passed by the 2"d respondent - Managing Director, A.P. Vikalangula Cooperative Corporation, by which, they were retired from service with effect from 3l-Oa-2O12, mainly on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and that the procedure for age determination was not followed. Consequently, a direction is sought to respondents to continue them in service til1 they attain the age of superannuation as per the date of birth entered in the service register at the time of appointment and pay all the benehts, back wages, etcetera. 2 Petitioners claim to have joined the 2"d respondent Corporation in 1988 and 1990 with their dates of birth recorded in thcir respective serwice registers. However, they wcre directed to attend an examination at the Forensic Medicine Department, Osmania General Hospitai, Hyderabad on 28-O8-2O12, purportedly for age determination. Accordingly, unaware of the fact that date of birth once entered and continued in service for more than two decades could not be altered, they complied with and atLended the session where only physical measurements were taken and radiological examination, a key test for age 2 I o determinatjon rvas not conducted. However, to t}:reir sho:k, the

2.d responclen. issued the impugned retirement order' It is contended by petitioners that the]' \\r)re not given z,nl op rortunity to question certihcates issuecl by the Forensic Depi t tment, hence, the certificates al1egecl11' r 'sed as the bat;is forctr'ring them from service cannot be reliet:i upon' No notice itrrliclrting the intended date of retiren-'enl s'as issued and th,: impu gncd order was passed without such prior noticc, therebl'r'iolatrng the principles of natural juslice A:cording to petitioners, at the time of retlrement [)e tltioner lvas only 51-ycar-old rT'i.th sever years order, lhe 1 rt of sen'ice rctnaining and Pe titioners 2 to 7 l'tad eve e more remaining s,:r vicc, exceeding 1O ycars in several cases The 2"d respondcnt rr isr-tsing the age verification process, att(rn pted to i1lega1l',' tcrminate thcir services. Had the resul[s becn shared, petitior-rers uonld have raised objections, especially beczruse the Radiol,rgical If xamination was not perforrned T ee 2nd respon dent, l>y u,ithholding this opportuniff, purl'osefully denied them the chance to challenge the certifici''te and retirenrent. Tre impugned order clearly demonstrates t-hat the 2"d re spondt nt had earlier attempted to terminate thet.n under the guise of z Humanitarian Package. When that methoC failed, a new methorl - the manipulation of age records - rvas devised V /, /-) .(- to terrninate their ser-vices. Petitioners further state that thcir services had been regularized on the representation given to the then Hon'ble Chief Minister Dr. Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao on 31-O1-1987. In response, assurances were given by the then Government that their jobs would be made permanent and would not be interrupted under any circumstances.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners Sri Ram Naresh Kumar submits that all his clients are suffering from blindness, and one among them is completely physically-handicapped and their employment is their only means of livelihood. He argues that petitioners were not issued prior notice before serving the order of retirement which is violation of basic principle of natural justice. It is submitted that the 2"d respondent lacks authority to alter the dates of birth recorded in the service registers more than two decades ago.

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General representing the 2.d respondent, based on the counter- affidavit, justihes the impugned action stating that petitioners were beneficiaries of irregular appointments during the tenure of one Sri S. Venugopala Rao, the then Managing Director of APVCC between 1987 and 1991. It is submitted that numerous appointments were made without adherence to eligibility criteria, educational qualifications, or budgetary provisions,, I t,l I -,1 r I 4 resulting in f nancial distress to the Corporation. It '-s furthe r contendcd I l- at pctitioners \\'ere among tLie 29O tel oporary emplol.ees rtito u'ere allowed regular pay scales from O1-O1- 1995 in acco'dance rvith Resolution No.4B3 of tl're 28th Board Meeting datcrl 1O-11 1994 ol the APVCC. The said resolutron, hou'ever. u.a s conditional upon: theil' Prior approval a) Colernment; b) Willir gness ol rhe employees to work in Training Cum Productio I Centers and pr-oclucc sufficient output salary; c) Fun( tionjnil of the Training Cum-Production Centcrs as i:.rc epcndent financiaI Lrnits r ndcr thc control of Joint Collector/ExecL tive Dire( tor $'.e.f. 01 12, i 99,+: d) Reorilarizalic n of the existing centers into cooperati,'l] socicti(-'s at the district level, irdcpendent of ltnancial obligation from the CorP.ration or Governroenl The respondentr, allege that the Project Offir:ers issued orders grarrting time scale p,ry rlith(,1i1 verilying the eligibility or obtaining prior go ',ernrnent approvat, thercL) violating the very terms of the Board resolution. I urther, it that the dates of birth recorded in the sen'ice r(igi lteLivere is cont€n(led based rrereLy o) notarized affidavits (Petitioners 1,2,3, 1,5 & 7) and a medical ccrtificlte (Petitioner No.6), and the Corpor:ttion clor bted the genuinencss of :.uch records- The Corporation, therefore, souEll-It ro verifl the true age of sur1.r (rlnplovees through a Special Medical Roard. L:arne d Additional Advocate General rch'ir Lg upon the findings of the Professor & Head of the Departlnen[ of Forens,ic Med icir-re, Osmania Medical College/ Cienerzrl t tospital, Hyderabacl, v'ho conducted radiological age deterrhinati rn tests o11 29-O8-2Ol2 and issued certihcates, submits that pelitiolrers were around 58 vears of agc as on that date. Conscqu ently, it was c:nclud,rcl that petitioners attained.60 years of age by 31-08-2014. According to him, petitioners \ ()re ser"v 3d with these :rredica reports in December 2Ol2 and they did r ot raise 5 () any objection at that stage and accepted retirement benefits voluntarily

5. Upon considering the rival contentions, it is imperative for this Court to decide as to whejher the process adopted by respondents in retiring petitioners based solely on medical age determination reports without affording due opportunit5r or following proper procedure is sustainable in law. 6. It is an admitted fact that petitioners were appointed as early as 1987-1988 and continued in service for over 25 years. [t is also undisputed that time scale of pay was granted to them with effect from 01-01-1995. Their date of birth, though supported by notarized afhdavits or medical certificates, was accepted by the Corporation for over two decades without dispute. There is no record to show that petitioners were given a chance to contest the medical board,s Iindings or that they were issued show cause notices before being treated as having crossed 60 years of age. Such unilateral reliance on radiological tests after several decades of service, in the absence of personal hearing or verified corrbborative material, amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. As per settled law, once an empioyee is allowed to continue for several years with a particular date of birth recorded in official records, and if the employer has acted upon 6 f Ir the same without objection, it is not open to the emplc yer to unilaterzrlll' alt:r such date to the detriment of [he emJ:loyee, particulzrrJv olt the verge of retirement, \ 'i 'hout srtrictly complying u,il.h procedural safeguards. Respondernts sou ght to justify l.heir actions by citing irregularities in the o:-iginal appointrnents. However, there is no specihc chargc c,r erlquiry initialed agair st petitioners individually alleging fra.-rd or misreprt:sentzrt on. Mere general reference to irr egular appointrnenls or a committce report without incl vidual attributior.r of rnisconduct cannot be a basis lo rliscar<l r;ettlcd service r ecord s

7. Leiu:tred counsel for pctitioner placed on rc.t,rd the relevant peiges cf Essentials of Forensic Medicine, Revieu' Artir:le on Forensic Age trstimation and age determination methods in Forensic Scien ce and rclated fields. In EssentizLls of F < rensic Medicin:, e stir-ration of age as a whole for the ltersons in the bracket o1 5Q-{r0 years, it would be seen, the external ta:les of the vault becor ae slightly thinner. The molar cro\vns ol t hr: teeth are usually u'crn flat to a single plane. lf all mol,lr cups are so u,orn that thr: :ronn is a flat plane, an age of filty plus rray be concluded. I'urther, age assessment methodclogv involves physica exanrination, x-ray examination of hand. dental examinzLtion, examination of the claviclcs. But, there is nothing - 7 on record to show that respondents carried out these examinations on petitioners to arrive at their exact age. When it is the specihc case of petitioners that during forensic examination, only physical measurements were taken and no radiological examination was conducted, burden is on respondents to prove that examination was done in a scientific manner. For the failure of respondents to discharge the same and in the absence of notice indicating their intention of retiring petitioners, this Court holds that Writ Petition deserves to be allowed.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Impugned proceedings dated 28-02-2015 is quashed. Respondents are directed to reinstate petitioners into service forthwith with ali consequential benehts, including back wages, continuity of service, and pensionary benefits, as applicable. No costs.

9. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand ciosed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL, on this Monday, the Seventh Day Of April Two Thousand And Twenty Five //TRUE COPY// SD/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principa I Secretary, Women Development an Department, Secretari at, State of Telangana, HYd hild and Disabled Welfare bad.

2. The Managing Director A.P. Vikalangula Cooperative, Corporation, Malakpet, Hyderabad.

3. The District Educational Officer, Krishna District' A.P' 4. one cc to sRl B.V.RAM NARESH KUMAR' AdvQcate' [OPUC] I W

5. Two COs to GF' FOR WOMEN WELFARE, High Court for the Sltate of Telangana at F yderabad. [OUT]

6. Two COs to GF' FOR EDUCATION, High Court for: the State of Telangana at Hyderarrad. [OIJTJ

7. One CO to AD[)ITIONAL ADV GENERAL [OPUC] 8. Two C[) Copier;. BSK GJPw HIGH COUR'I' DATED:0710aV2025 \ / ,.(.! Jr .$' /t (,\ t ORDER WP.No.:]124 of q$' s\ ^/9r (, ALLOWING'I-HE WRIT PETITION WITHOIJT COSTS 6L