The Telangana State Road ... vs R.Beelya

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                       AND
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY



                    WRIT APPEAL No.15 of 2021

JUDGMENT:    (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)




     The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated

25.09.2019        passed     by      the      learned         Single     Judge    in

W.P.No.25203 of 2016.

     The      facts        of      the        case         reveal        that    the

respondent/employee was appointed on 18.03.1990 in the

service of appellants Corporation and keeping in view the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964, governing the field, as the employee has not having any educational certificate to his credit nor any birth certificate, he was sent for medical examination for ascertaining his date of birth. Regulation 19 is reproduced as under:

"19. Date of Birth:

(1) Every person on entering the service of the Corporation shall declare his date of birth which shall not differ from any declaration, express or implied, made by him for any public purpose before entering such service. For this purpose, the date of birth as recorded in a school or college certificate shall be adopted without any modification.

(2) (a) When the year or year and month of birth are known but not the exact date, the 1st July or the 16th of that month, respectively, shall be treated as the date of birth.

(b) Where the person concerned is unable to furnish satisfactory evidence of his age, it should be assessed by a Medical Officer of the Corporation and the age so assessed or the age as declared by the person, whichever is more, shall be accepted as final and the employee shall be assumed to have completed that age on the date of attestation by the Medical Officer.

(3) The date of birth as determined by the appropriate provisions of the preceding clauses shall be recorded in the service register. The date so recorded shall be held to be binding and no alteration of such date shall be permitted subsequently. It shall however, be open to the Corporation in the case of a Class I employee, and to the Managing Director in the case of any other employee under his administrative control, to cause the date of birth to be altered -

(i) where in his opinion it had been falsely stated by the employee to obtain and advantage otherwise in admissible, provided that such alteration shall not result in the employee being retained in service longer than if the alteration had not been made; or

(ii) where in the case of illiterate staff, the Managing Director is satisfied that a clerical error has occurred."

The medical examination was carried out and the certificate, which is on record at page 40 makes it very clear that his age was assessed as 25 years at the time of entry into service i.e., in the year 1990. By taking into account the aforesaid medical certificate, the Date of birth recorded in the service register was 05.09.1964. The employer has later on corrected the date of birth as 10.05.1959 by passing an order dated 27.05.2016 and in those circumstances, the employee has preferred a writ petition. The learned Single Judge, keeping in view the earlier judgement delivered in identical case, has allowed the writ petition. The order passed by the learned Single Judge reads as under:

When the matter is taken up for hearing, counsel for the petitioner as well as Standing Counsel appearing for the 3 respondents had informed the Court that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed in W.P.No.12599 of 2019, dated 28.06.2019, wherein this Court has dealt with Regulation No.19(2)(b) and 19(3) of TSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964 and held that the Corporation cannot correct the date of birth at the fag end of the service of the employee. It is also submitted that in the instant case, the date of birth of the petitioner as entered in the service register was 05.09.1964 and the said date of birth was corrected as 10.05.1959 vide proceedings dated 27.05.2016 and based upon the corrected date of birth at the fag end of the service of the petitioner, the respondents have retired the petitioner on 31.05.2017 and the said correction at the fag end of the service of the petitioner is not permissible.

This Court, having considered the above submissions, is of the considered view that by following the order passed in the writ petition referred supra, the action of the respondents in correcting the date of birth of the petitioner at the fag end of his service vide proceedings dated 27.05.2016 is incorrect and therefore, the proceedings dated 27.05.2016 are liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the proceedings dated 27.05.2016 are set aside. The respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as Assistant Depot Clerk till he attains the age of superannuation as per the date of birth entered in the service register, with all consequential benefits. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed."

In the considered opinion of this Court, the employer has changed the date of birth of the employee at the fag end of his service career. The same could not have been done keeping in view the fact that the date of birth was recorded in service register in view of the Regulation 19(2)(b) of the TSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964, that too after subjecting him to medical examination. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.

Resultantly, the writ appeal is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ appeal shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ ______________________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 28.10.2021 ES