N. Madhusudhan Reddy vs Telangana State Road Transport ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 6853 Tel

Telangana High Court

N. Madhusudhan Reddy vs Telangana State Road Transport ... on 3 December, 2025

     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                        AT HYDERABAD


THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
                            AND
           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN


              WRIT APPEAL No.1370 of 2025

                    Dated: 03.12.2025


Between:
Sri N.Madhusudhan Reddy
                                               ...Appellant


                            and
Telangana State Road Transport Corporation,
Rep. by its Joint Managing Director, Bus Bhavan,
Musheerabad, Hyderabad,
and three others.
                                           ...Respondents

JUDGMENT:

Learned counsel Sri V.Narasimha Goud appears for

the appellant.

Sri Panakanti Satish Kumar, learned Standing

Counsel for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation,

appears for the respondents.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The impugned writ petition related to a date of birth

controversy. The appellant, who was the writ petitioner,

alleged that his actual date of birth was 03.05.1963, but

the service record showed it as 27.02.1958. On

superannuation notice being issued on 01.09.2015

intimating the appellant of his date of retirement i.e.,

29.02.2016, the appellant approached this Court in the

impugned writ petition. The learned writ court called for

the original record from the respondents - Corporation,

and passed an order on 30.08.2016 to the following effect:

"This Court called for the original record from the respondents and noticed that the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in the Service Register as 3.5.1960 and is altered as 27.02.1958. In his application dt.24.02.86, after his appointment as casual driver, the petitioner gave a declaration stating that he is enclosing copy of the transfer certificate, Employment Card and local candidate certificates and if they are found not correct, he would be ready for termination of the service, apart from taking criminal proceedings. The Transfer Certificate filed at that time clearly shows that as May, 1960 and was studying 6th class.

This evidence is sufficient as the said documents were filed way back in 1986.

In the circumstances, the petitioner shall be continued in service till he attains the age of superannuation by taking the date of birth as 3.5.1960 until further orders."

4. The writ petition remained pending and the appellant

superannuated reckoning his age from the date of birth as

03.05.1960 as was found from the service record and

reportedly altered to 27.02.1958. When the matter was

finally argued, the appellant claimed that his date of birth

ought to have been treated as 03.05.1963 on the basis of a

Transfer Certificate bearing No.262891 issued by the Zilla

Parishad High School, Pochampally. However, the learned

writ court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the

interim order and observed that the appellant was entitled

to the difference of monetary/service benefits, if any, from

the date of premature retirement from 01.03.2016 till he

was taken on duty on 16.02.2017 and finally

superannuated treating his date of birth as 03.05.1960.

Questioning the impugned findings of the learned writ

court, learned counsel for the appellant has sought to draw

the attention of this Court to the information obtained

under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the Transfer

Certificate said to have been issued by the Zilla Parishad

High School, Pochampally, with the reiteration that the

date of birth of the appellant is 03.05.1963.

5. We are unable to agree with the contention of the

learned counsel for the appellant for the following reasons.

When the learned writ court, after calling for the

original record, recorded a categorical finding that the date

of birth of the appellant should be treated as 03.05.1960

instead of 27.02.1958, if at all the said finding affected the

appellant's claim of date of birth, the said finding ought to

have been questioned in an appropriate proceeding by the

appellant even though the writ petition was pending. On

the other hand, a perusal of the Transfer Certificate shows

overwriting at certain places which does not lend credence

to the document relied upon by the appellant in a writ

proceeding. As a matter of fact, the date on which the

application for Transfer Certificate was made at serial

No.17 is 10.02.1988, whereas the date of the Transfer

Certificate is 10.02.1981, on the basis of which the

appellant claims to have been born on 03.05.1963. By the

order dated 30.08.2016, the appellant has got the relief

from the learned writ court which, after examining the

original service record, was convinced that his date of birth

ought to have been treated as 03.05.1960 instead of

27.02.1958.

6. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any

merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

______________________________________ APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ

______________________________________ G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J

03.12.2025 vs