Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana Rep.By Its ... vs M.Narayana Reddy on 25 March, 2022
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT APPEAL No.235 OF 2017
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated
04.08.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.30409 of 2013.
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the
respondent No.1/writ petitioner was appointed in the services of
the respondent No.2/Saraswati Vidya Nilayam Primary School
(Aided), Suryapet, Nalgonda District, on temporary basis on
14.07.1983. At the time of initial entry into service, he
disclosed his date of birth as 06.02.1959 and at the relevant
point of time, the school was not receiving grant-in-aid. The
school was admitted to grant-in-aid with effect from 01.11.1989
and one post of S.G.B.T. was sanctioned. Even before the
school was admitted to grant-in-aid, the respondent No.1/writ
petitioner preferred a civil suit in O.S.No.962 of 1985 and a
judgment and decree was passed on 17.09.1986 declaring his
date of birth as 06.02.1959 which is the date of birth mentioned
at the time of inception in service. The Government was aware
of his date of birth in the year 1989 and the same date of birth
continued in service. However, some complaint was received by
the Government informing that the date of birth of the
respondent No.1/writ petitioner is 04.07.1955. In those
circumstances, action was initiated against the respondent
No.1/writ petitioner and he was superannuated on 31.07.2013.
The respondent No.1/writ petitioner has immediately rushed to
this Court and this Court has granted interim order directing
the appellants/State to continue him in service. However, he
was not permitted to continue and contempt petition was also
filed. Finally, the writ petition itself was decided in favour of the
respondent No.1/writ petitioner.
The operative portion of the order passed by the learned
Single Judge is reproduced as under:-
"It is clear from the above facts that the date of birth of petitioner
was recorded as 06.02.1959 in the Service Register maintained by
respondent No.4 school. I have summoned the Service Register and it
contained the said date of birth. It is not known on what basis he
declared the said date of birth, but the S.S.C. certificate contained
the date of birth as 04.07.1955. The petitioner filed O.S. No.962 of
1985 in the Court of District Munsiff at Suryapet, Nalgonda District
impleading the State and other parties as defendants. The suit was
decreed on 17.09.1986 and it has become final. By that time, the
petitioner was working as Junior Assistant in respondent No.4
school and when the school was admitted to grant-in-aid with effect
from 01.11.1989, since he possessed the requisite qualification, he
was absorbed in the aided vacancy of S.G.B.T. The petitioner
continued as such and all the correspondence from respondent No.4
school contained the date of birth as 06.02.1959. When a complaint
was received with regard to the date of birth of petitioner in the year
2013, the petitioner was asked to produce the S.S.C. certificate,
which he could not produce in original, but he filed a Xerox copy.
However, on the basis of Xerox copy an order was passed by
respondent No.2 on 07.10.2013 asking the petitioner to retire from
service with effect from 31.07.2013, but by virtue of the order passed
by this Court in the present writ petition on 24.10.2013, the
petitioner continued to discharge his duties for some time. Since the
prepondering evidence is on the side of petitioner and the Service
Register contained the date of birth claimed by the petitioner viz.,
06.02.1959, this Court is inclined to set aside the order of
respondent No.2 dated 07.10.2013 and directs the respondent No.2
to pass orders taking the date of birth as 06.02.1959 and continue
him in service till his superannuation as per the said date of birth.
The petitioner shall be reinstated pursuant to the order in the
present writ petition. He shall be allowed to retire on superannuation
taking the date of birth as 06.02.1959. However, with regard to
payment of salary to the petitioner from the date of discontinuance,
consequent to the order dated 07.10.2013 of respondent No.2 and
continuance by virtue of the interim order of this Court dated
24.10.2013, the same shall be regulated by inspecting the records of
respondent No.4 school. The petitioner shall not be entitled for the
salary for the period he has not worked, however, he is entitled for all
other benefits.
With the above observations, W.P. No.30409 of 2013 is allowed to
the extent indicated above. In view of the disposal of writ petition
itself, there is no need to proceed further with the contempt case,
and accordingly, Contempt Case No.1224 of 2015 is closed. No order
as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed."
The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition
has not granted backwages to the respondent No.1/writ
petitioner, however has held that he will be entitled for all retiral
dues by treating him in service up to 28.02.2017.
This Court has carefully gone through the order passed
by the learned Single Judge and perused the record. In the
present case, it is an undisputed fact that at the time the school
was admitted to grant-in-aid, the State Government was
certainly aware of the date of birth mentioned by the respondent
No.1/writ petitioner as 06.02.1959. There is also a judgment
and decree dated 17.09.1986 passed in favour of the respondent
No.1/writ petitioner in O.S.No.962 of 1985 declaring his date of
birth as 06.02.1959. The date of birth, which was initially
recorded in the service register in 1983, has continued up to
2013 i.e., the time the employer made an attempt to change the
date of birth to retire the respondent No.1/writ petitioner
prematurely.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the date of birth
recorded in the service register at the time of inception in
service, has to be treated as the correct date of birth, keeping in
view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, especially
in light of the judgment and decree dated 17.09.1986 passed in
O.S.No.962 of 1985. The appellants have also violated the
principles of natural justice and fair play by retiring the
respondent No.1/writ petitioner prematurely. No enquiry of any
kind was conducted with the participation of the respondent
No.1/employee and the employer, merely based upon the
anonymous complaint, has taken unilateral action in the
matter. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the order
passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant
interference. The respondent No.1/writ petitioner shall be
entitled for all terminal dues by treating his service up to
28.02.2017. However, he shall not be entitled for backwages.
Resultantly, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
_______________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
25.03.2022
JSU
