Telangana High Court
Ch. Gangamma, vs Secy., Muni.Admin.Dept., State ... on 6 September, 2022
Bench: B.Vijaysen Reddy
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.21765 OF 2018
ORDER:
Heard Smt. K. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the petitioner,
and learned Government Pleader for Municipality, and perused the
material on record.
2.1. The case of the petitioner (Mrs. Ch. Gangamma) is that
she joined as NMR at Narayanpet Municipality as Sweeper on
25.05.1998. She approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative
Tribunal by filing O.A. No.3585 of 2011 for regularisation of her
services. In terms of the order passed by the Administrative
Tribunal in the said O.A., the Government has accorded permission
to the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration to
regularise her services. Accordingly, G.O.Rt.No.852 dated
25.06.2012 was issued regularising the services of the petitioner.
2.2. While so, the petitioner was issued with Notice
No.C1/891/2016 dated 03.08.2016 informing her that she attained
the age of superannuation on the afternoon of 31.10.2015. She was
instructed to submit service pension papers in 5 sets for onward
transmission to A.G.A.P., Hyderabad. Thereafter, letter dated
23.08.2016, the Commissioner, Municipality, Narayanpet was
addressed to the Commissioner and Director of Municipal
Administration stating that while scrutinising records for
submitting proposals for regularisation and declaration of probation
of the individual (petitioner), bona fide certificate submitted by her
at the time of her appointment attracted attention, wherein her date
of birth is shown as 17.10.1955, but the same has been recorded in
her service book as 01.07.1970.
2.3. It was further stated in the letter dated 23.08.2016 that
due to discrepancy with regard to date of birth in bona fide
certificate issued by the Head Master, Government High School,
Narayanpet, in contrast with the date of birth in her service register,
the Commissioner has addressed a fresh letter to the Gazetted Head
Master, Government High School, Narayanpet with a request to
confirm the petitioner's date of birth. After due verification of
records, the Gazetted Head Master has confirmed date of birth of
the petitioner viz., Smt. Gangamma as 17.10.1955 and issued a
fresh bona fide certificate. The Head Master also informed that the
incumbent has appeared and passed S.S.C. examination in April
1972 with Registration No.161300. The Commissioner has
directed the incumbent to produce her S.S.C. pass certificate for
verification and to ascertain date of birth of the individual.
However, the petitioner has stated that she does not possess S.S.C.
certificate and based on the bona fide certificate issued by the
Commissioner, her retirement was effected on 31.10.2015.
3.1. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the proceedings dated 03.08.2016 including the letter dated
23.08.2016 issued by the respondent is wholly illegal, arbitrary and
in violation of principles of natural justice.
3.2. Representation dated 26.09.2016 was submitted by the
petitioner to respondent No.2 - the Commissioner and Director of
Municipal Administration, Telangana State, Hyderabad, stating
that initially she was appointed as NMR at Narayanpet
Municipality and subsequently her services were regularised. Her
date of birth is 01.07.1970 and the same is recorded in her service
register. The proceedings of respondent No.2 showing her date of
birth as 17.10.1955 is wholly arbitrary. The S.S.C. Certificate
alleged to have issued by the Gazetted Head Master, Government
High School, Narayanpet, and the bona fide certificate cannot be
conclusive proof as the same do not belong to the petitioner but
pertain to one K. Gangmma who is not the petitioner but a different
person. The said K. Gangamma is daughter one Siddi Lingappa,
her date of birth is 07.10.1955 and she studied in Kannada Medium
and her mother tongue is Kannada, whereas the petitioner's mother
tongue is Telugu and she never had any education in that
Government School.
3.3. In the counter filed by respondent No.3, it is contended
that the petitioner was appointed as NMR on daily wages by the
Chairperson, Municipal Council, Narayanpet, by the proceedings
No.728/88/A1 dated 20.08.1988. The services of the petitioner
were regularised by the proceedings in Roc. No.A/1448/2012 dated
05.07.2012. The respondents through proceedings dated
03.08.2016 informed the petitioner about her superannuation and
her date of birth as 17.10.1955 as per the records of the office.
The petitioner has successfully recorded her date of birth as
01.07.29170 instead of 17.10.1955 in the service book with a bad
intention. Furthermore, there is no signature of the staff concerned.
It is a suspicious document which was prepared by the petitioner.
The petitioner changed her date of birth in her service register and
later took signatures on it from a previous officer. The writings on
the service register are not related to the office staff concerned.
The bona fide certificate and transfer certificate (Admission
No.1951) from Government High School, Narayanpet, belonging
to the petitioner clearly revealed that her date of birth as
17.10.1955. Bona fide certificate submitted by the petitioner at the
time of joining the office also shows her date of birth as
17.10.1955. Retirement of the petitioner was effected on
31.10.2015. The childhood educational certificates denote name of
the father but not the husband name and this fact was kept in dark
by the petitioner.
4. By relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarjoo
Prasad v. General Manager1, the learned counsel for the
(1981) 3 SCC 544
petitioner has submitted that enquiry ought to have been conducted
by the respondents by giving opportunity of hearing and they
cannot unilaterally alter the age and the same is in violation of
principles of natural justice.
5. In the considered opinion of this Court, reasonable
opportunity was not given to the petitioner before her date of birth
was altered in the service register. In view of the disputed
questions of facts and doubt about the genuineness of transfer and
bona fide certificates produced by the petitioner and allegations
that the petitioner has clandestinely changed her date of birth by
colluding with the previous office staff, this Court is not inclined to
go into the merits of the case. It needs to be noted that the
difference of age is about 15 years, going by the alleged date of
birth claimed by the petitioner and respondent No.3 - employer.
6. In the circumstances, it would suffice, if directions are
issued to the respondents to conduct necessary enquiry for the
purpose of ascertaining actual date of birth of the petitioner.
Having noticed that there is huge difference of 15 years comparing
the alleged date of birth 01.07.1970 (as claimed by the petitioner)
and 17.10.1955 (as claimed by respondent No.3), it is desirable that
the petitioner is referred to medical examination to find her
approximate age, in case, her actual age cannot be determined in
the enquiry.
7. In the light of the above observations, the impugned
Notice No.C1/891/2016 dated 03.08.2016 including the Letter in
Rc.No.C1/891/2016 dated 23.08.2016 are set aside. Accordingly,
the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit
fresh representation to respondent No.3 within a period of three (3)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with all
relevant documents in proof of her contention that her date of birth
is 01.07.1970 and not 17.10.1955. On receipt of such
representation, respondent No.3 shall conduct enquiry and pass
orders in accordance with law within a period of six (6) weeks
thereof; in its discretion the respondents may refer the petitioner to
the competent authority / hospital / laboratory for determination of
her approximate age. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending
in the writ petition stand closed.
______________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
September 6, 2022.
PV
