THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.26805 OF 2003
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.BPA/PER/41/3096 dt.07.08.2002 issued by the respondent as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the judgments rendered by this Court in W.P.No.7828 of 1991 and W.A.No.739 of 1992 and to consequently direct the respondent to release the salary and other benefits for the period from 20.05.1991 to 31.07.1992 by treating her husband's date of birth as 15.07.1932.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this Writ Petition are that the petitioner is the wife of late K.P. John who joined the service of the respondent company on 23.04.1948. The age of superannuation of the employees of the respondent company is 60 years. The petitioner's husband's date of birth is 15.07.1932 as per his matriculation certificate, but at the time of appointment, in his service register, the date of birth of the petitioner's husband was entered as 23.04.1930. Alleging that the said date of birth is wrong, the petitioner's husband refused to sign his service register. Subsequently, his date of birth was corrected as 15.07.1932 in the service book on 28.11.1982. However, the petitioner's husband was referred to the Apex Medical Board for examination for determination of his correct date of birth. The Apex 2 Medical Board after physical examination issued proceedings dt.07.05.1991 determining the age of the petitioner's husband as 18 years as on 23.04.1948, i.e., the date of joining the respondent company. On the basis of the said Medical Board proceedings dt.07.05.1991 treating the date of birth of the petitioner's husband as 23.04.1930, proceedings No.P.BPA/28/1884 dt.25.05.1991 were issued to retire the petitioner's husband from service with effect from 20.05.1991. Contending that as per the date of birth entered in his matriculation certificate, the petitioner's husband was entitled to be continued in service up to 31.07.1992, but he was sought to be retired by 31.04.1990 depriving him 27 months service and consequently, the employee filed W.P.No.7828 of 1991. Vide orders dt.29.01.1992, this Hon'ble Court directed the respondent to determine the age of the petitioner by Age Determination Committee by taking into consideration the certificate of the Head Master of the school dt.30.07.1945 and the matriculation certificate dt.01.04.1966 and after affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said direction in the Writ Petition, the respondent filed W.A.No.739 of 1992, but the same was dismissed.
3. Thereafter, in compliance with the directions in the Writ Petition, the petitioner's husband was directed to appear before the Medical Board constituted for the purpose, along with proof of his date of birth as 15.07.1932. The petitioner's husband submitted the matriculation certificate dt.01.04.1966. However, he was directed to 3 produce matriculation certificate afresh. Meanwhile, the petitioner's husband died on 24.12.1999 and thereafter, the petitioner obtained a fresh certificate of matriculation and submitted a representation requesting the respondent to pay the salary and other benefits of her late husband from 20.05.1991 to 31.07.1992. The same was rejected mentioning that if the date of birth of the late employee is accepted as 15.07.1932 as claimed by him, his age at the time of his appointment would have been 15 years 9 months and therefore, he could not have been appointed to the service at all and therefore the said date of birth cannot be accepted. Aggrieved, this Writ Petition is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, submitted that no such objection of the employee being under-aged at the time of his appointment was taken by the respondent earlier in any of the proceedings and therefore, the respondent is precluded from taking such objection at this stage. He submitted that as directed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.7828 of 1991, the respondent company should have considered the date of birth of the employee as per the Head Master certificate dt.30.07.1945 and matriculation certificate dt.01.04.1966.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, Sri J. Sreenivasa Rao, on the other hand, has reiterated the contentions of the respondent that the petitioner's husband could not have been appointed at the age of 15 years 9 months as even at that point of time, 4 the minimum age for appointment into the respondent company was 18 years. Therefore, according to him, the petitioner's husband must have satisfied the authorities that he was eighteen years of age at the time of his appointment and accordingly his date of birth was recorded as 23.04.1930 in the service record. Thus, according to him, the petitioner's husband has been rightly retired at the age of 60 on 20.05.1991.
6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that from the beginning of his service, the petitioner's husband had been claiming his date of birth to be 15.07.1932 on the basis of his Matriculation Certificate and had accordingly refused to sign his service register. He had relied upon the Head Master's Certificate dt.30.07.1945, which is prior to the date of appointment and Matriculation Certificate dt.01.04.1966 which is after the date of appointment. Since, the minimum age for appointment into the respondent company is 18 years, and the respondent company, presumably, has verified the age of the employee before appointing him as a Clerk, the Apex Medical Board has certified the age of the employee as 18 years as on 13.04.1948, i.e., the date of appointment of the employee. Therefore, the fact that the employee would have been under-aged at the time of appointment if the date of birth is to be considered as 15.07.1932, cannot be brushed aside. If only the date of birth of the petitioner's husband is taken as 23.04.1930, the petitioner's husband would be 18 5 years of age at the time of his appointment. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to set aside the impugned order of the respondent.
7. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall also stand dismissed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 26.11.2021 Svv