Telangana High Court
P. Jagan Mohan , A. Jagan Mohan Died ... vs The State Govt. Of Telangana, on 12 October, 2023
Bench: J Sreenivas Rao
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
WRIT PETITION No.2110 OF 2017
1. A. Jagan Mohan S/o. Thirupathi,
aged 57 yrs, died as per LRs.
Occ:ASI, R/o H.No.1-12-154/A,
Vinayaka Nagar, Nimzamabad - TS.
2. Smt. A. Varalazmi, W/o A.Jagan Mohan,
Aged 57 yrs, Occ: House hold and three others.
....Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State Government of Telangana,
Home Dept, Secretariat, Hyderabad,
rep. by its Principal Secretary and four others
... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 12.10.2023
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local Yes/No
newspapers may be allowed to see the
Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may Yes/No
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish Yes/No
to see the fair copy of the Judgment?
_____________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
+ WRIT PETITION No.2110 OF 2017
% Dated 12.10.2023
# A. Jagan Mohan S/o. Thirupathi,
aged 57 yrs, died as per LRs.
Occ:ASI, R/o H.No.1-12-154/A,
Vinayaka Nagar, Nimzamabad - TS.
Smt. A. Varalazmi, W/o A.Jagan Mohan,
Aged 57 yrs, Occ: House hold and three others.
....Petitioner
VERSUS
$ The State Government of Telangana,
Home Dept, Secretariat, Hyderabad,
rep. by its Principal Secretary and four others
... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner : K.M.Mahender Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondent : G.P. for Home
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
1. 2010 4 ALD 16 (DB)
2. 2021 11 Scale 110
3. 1994 6 SCC 302
4. 2023 1 ALT 332
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION No.2110 of 2017
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"...issue an appropriate Writ or Order or direction particularly
one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus in issuing impugned the
Memo No.A3/LR/Mis/ 2017, dt. -.01.2017 by 4th respondent
proposing to retire as Asst Sub Inspector of Police PS Town V
Nizamabad with effect from 31.01.2007 instead of 31.07.2017 by
showing incorrect date of birth as 13.01.1959 instead of 13.07.1959
contrary to two ID cards issued by two Govts. i.e., AP.Govt. ID No.
CIVIL 81 122077 issued on 02.03.2013 before bifurcation of AP
State and Telangana Govt No.1981 039974 issued recently on
09.03.2016 after bifurcation of AP State showing date of birth as
02.07.1959 valid upto 31.07.2017 and failed to rectify date of birth
as 13.07.1959 on the basis of ID cards Transfer Certificate which
was submitted at the time of joining in Service as Constable in 1981
year Bonafide Certificate dt 22.01.2007 is totally illegal, arbitrary,
unjust, discriminatory, unreasonable, without jurisdiction opposed
to Public Policy and violation of Art. 14, 16, 21 of the Constitution of
India and also violative of Principles of Natural Justice and call for
the records and issue consequential directions to the Respondents:
a) to continue the petitioner as Asst Sub Inspector till 31.07.2017.
b) to issue revised orders showing the petitioner retirement as
31.07.2017 without disturbing terminal benefits alternatively direct
the respondents to pay full salary till 31.07.2017 from 01.02.2017
i.e., till the retirement date and award costs..."
2. Heard Sri K.M. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader for Home for
respondent Nos.1 to 4.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was appointed as constable in respondent No.4 office
through proceedings D.O.No.2484/81 dated 14.02.1981 and he
joined at P.S.Armoor. At the time of appointment he produced X
class Transfer Certificate and bonafide certificate dated
22.01.2007, wherein his date of birth was mentioned as
13.07.1959, along with representation on 31.01.2007. However,
respondent No.4 issued ex parte order on 06.10.2016, vide
Proc. C.No.A5/1259/54/Pup-Pen/2015, D.O.No.2128/2016,
wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner is going to be retired on
31.01.2017 instead of 31.07.2017, after receipt of the said order
the petitioner submitted representation on 09.11.2016 to
respondent authorities requesting them to rectify his date of birth
basing on the transfer certificate issued by respondent No.5
School. When the respondents failed to consider the said
representation the petitioner approached this Court and filed
W.P.No.1095 of 2017, when the said case is pending, respondent
No.4 issued impugned Memo No.A3/LR/Mis/2017 dated Nil-01-
2017, rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the
date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 13.01.1959 in the
service record and also in Arogya Bhadratha form and the
petitioner is not entitled for correction of his date of birth.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended
that at the time of appointment he produced the transfer
certificate and also bonafide certificate issued by respondent No.5
school wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 13.07.1959.
Respondents without properly considering the representation
submitted by the petitioner and without verifying the certificates
produced by the petitioner, erroneously rejected the claim of the
petitioner, without giving reasonable opportunity and the same is
contrary to law. In support of his contention he relied upon the
Judgment of this Court in C. Thimmaiah Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh and others (DB) 1.
5. Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader contended
that the petitioner was appointed as constable on 14.02.1981 and
basing on the date of birth furnished by the petitioner himself as
13.01.1959, respondents have opened his service records in the
year 1981 and the petitioner accepted the same and put his
signature and thumb impressions. Thereafter, in the year 1989,
the petitioner submitted an application under Arogya Bhadratha
scheme wherein he himself mentioned his date of birth as
13.01.1959. As per the Service Regulations, respondent No.4
1 2010 4 ALD 16 (DB)
issued Memo on 06.10.2016 informing the petitioner and others
that they are going to retire on 31.01.2017. After receipt of the
said notice, petitioner submitted a representation and after
verifying the entire records by duly considering the representation
submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.4 issued the impugned
order by giving cogent reasons. He further contended that during
his service the petitioner got two promotions, in the promotion
orders also the petitioner's date of birth was mentioned as
13.01.1959 and during his entire service the petitioner has not
raised any dispute seeking correction of his date of birth and he
had filed the present writ petition at the fagend of his services and
the same is not permissible under law and the petitioner is not
entitled to the relief sought in this writ petition.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by
respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on
record, it is undisputed fact that the petitioner was appointed as
constable on 14.02.1981, through the proceedings issued by
respondent No.4 and thereafter, the petitioner got promotion to
the post of Head Constable and ASI. As per the rules, respondent
No.4 issued memo on 06.10.2016, informing the petitioner that he
is going to be retired on 31.01.2017. After receipt of the said
notice, petitioner submitted representation on 09.11.2016.
Respondent No.4 after considering the same, issued the impugned
proceedings wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner himself
mentioned his date of birth as 13.01.1959 at the time of his initial
appointment and basing on the same his date of birth was
mentioned as 13.01.1959 in the service records. It is very much
relevant to mention here that this Court summoned the original
service record of the petitioner from the respondents on
11.08.2023 and the same was produced.
7. After due verification of the original service record, it
clearly reveals that in one document i.e., verification roll which
was prepared on 09.02.1981, all the details are mentioned by the
petitioner in his own handwriting including his date of birth i.e.,
13.01.1959 and had put his signature. It further reveals from the
record that the petitioner submitted application for membership
under Arogya Bhadratha A/c.No.033542 cum nomination form on
05.07.1999 to respondent wherein the petitioner himself
mentioned his date of birth as 13.01.1959 and also mentioned all
the family members particulars and he raised the dispute after
rendering more than 30 years of service i.e, at the fagend of his
service and the same is not permissible under law.
8. As per TS Public Employment (Recording and alteration of
date of Birth) Rules, 1984 every Government employee shall within
one month from the date on which he joins duty has to make a
declaration as to his date of birth.
9. It is already stated supra that the date of birth of the
petitioner in the service record was recorded as 13.01.1959 and
the petitioner has not raised dispute till 31.07.2017 and he raised
the said dispute after lapse of a long period of more than 30 years
and he filed the present writ petition on 20.01.2017 i.e., before his
retirement and the same is not permissible under law.
10. In C. Thimmaiah(supra) case the dispute of the
petitioner therein was his actual date of birth is 23.10.1953
basing on the certificate issued by MRO Roddam, but his date of
birth was entered as 10.01.1952 in the school records basing on
the wrong declaration given by his parents, who were illiterates, at
the time of admitting the petitioner in school and the same date
was entered in the petitioner's service record. The Division Bench
of this Court taking into consideration the Registration of Births
and Deaths Act, 1969 held that the certificate given by the
competent authority i.e., MRO, is authenticated document and
basing on the same the petitioner therein is entitled for correction
of his Date of Birth. In the case on hand, the petitioner's date of
birth was recorded in the service record basing on the information
furnished by the petitioner himself as 13.01.1959 and the same
was accepted by the petitioner and subsequently he got
promotions in the year 2006 and 2012, wherein his date of birth
was mentioned as 13.01.1959 and the petitioner is not entitled to
raise the dispute for correction of his date of birth. It is settled
proposition of law that at the fagend of service the employee is not
entitled to raise dispute for correction of date of birth.
11. In Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development
Limited Vs. T.P.Nataraja and Ors 2 the Hon'ble Apex Court held
that, the employee is not entitled to the relief of change of date of
birth on the ground of delay and latches as the request for change
of date of birth was made after lapse of 24 years since he joined
the service, which reads as follows:
9. Even otherwise and assuming that the reasoning given by the
High Court for the sake of convenience is accepted in that case also
even respondent No.1 - employee was not entitled to any relief or
change of date of birth on the ground of delay and laches as the
request for change of date of birth was made after lapse of 24 years
since he joined the service. At this stage, few decisions of this court
on the issue of correction of the date of birth are required to be
referred to.
11. Therefore, applying the law laid down by this court in the
aforesaid decisions, the application of the respondent for change of
2 2021 11 Scale 110
date of birth was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and
laches also and therefore as such respondent employee was not
entitled to the decree of declaration and therefore the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and
not tenable at law.
12. In State of Tamil Nadu Vs. T.V. Venugopalan 3, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the Government Servant
having declared his date of birth as entered in the service register
to be correct, would not be permitted at the fag end of the service
career to raise a dispute as regards the correctness of the entries
in the service register.
13. This Court in K. Kumaraswamy Vs. Regional Manager,
APSRTC and Others 4 after considering the various judgments of
this Court and Hon'ble Apex Court specifically held that the
petitioner having rendered more than two decades of service is not
entitled to contend that he is not aware of the actual date of birth
entered in the service records.
14. It is already stated supra that the petitioner's date of birth
was mentioned as 13.01.1959 in all the records pertaining to the
petitioner and he rendered more than 30 years of service and
during his tenure he got two promotions from constable to higher
posts. In the promotion orders also the petitioner's date of birth
3 1994 6 SCC 302
4 2023 1 ALT 332
was mentioned as 13.01.1959 and the petitioner raised the
dispute after receiving the advance intimation notice dated
06.10.2016 about his date of retirement and he submitted
representation on 09.11.2016 seeking correction of his date of
birth. Respondent No.4 after verification of the service record
rightly passed the impugned order.
15. Since the petitioner raised the dispute at the fagend of
service, this Court is not inclined to invoke the jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India to grant the relief
of correction of date of birth.
16. For the foregoing reasons as well as the principle laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, there are no merits in
the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
17. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any,
pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO
12th October, 2023
PSW
