Telangana High Court

Ananthala Narsi Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 7 March, 2025

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK


                WRIT PETITION No.1760 OF 2024


ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution

of India seeking the following relief:

"...to issue appropriate Writ or any other order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in directing the petitioner not to attend the office from 01.02.2024 on the ground that the petitioner would be attaining the age of superannuation as per date of birth i.e., 10.01.1963 instead of 10.01.1964, without issuing any notice whatsoever, as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to service jurisprudence and violation of well settled principal of natural justice and to pass..."

2. Heard Sri Mohd.Islamuddin Ansari, learned counsel for

the petitioner and learned Government for Services-I for

respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the material available on

record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner was appointed as an Office Sub-ordinate on

23.06.1992 and at the time of his appointment, the petitioner

submitted his Transfer Certificate (T.C.) dated 29.12.1977,

wherein his date of birth was clearly mentioned as 10.01.1964.

PK,J Wp_1760_2024

Further, on 20.01.2024, respondent No.2 had orally informed

the petitioner that upon attaining the age of superannuation, he

would no longer be required to attend the office from

01.02.2024 onwards. In response, the petitioner clarified that

his date of birth is '10.01.1964', and therefore, the date of his

superannuation would be in January 2025, and not in January

2024. However, respondent No.2 informed that according to the

service records, the petitioner's date of birth was recorded as

'10.01.1963'. As a result, the petitioner would attain the age of

superannuation in January 2024, which is totally arbitrary.

Consequently, the petitioner submitted a representation to

respondent No.2 on 20.01.2024 requesting for correction of his

date of birth from '10.01.1963' to '10.01.1964'. However,

without considering the same, respondent No.2 insisted the

petitioner not to attend office from 01.02.2024. It is further

submitted that respondent No.1 issued G.O.Ms.No.106, dated

24.05.2022, wherein the posts of respondent No.1-Department

were reorganized between the residuary State of Andhra

Pradesh and State of Telangana. Consequently, the petitioner

PK,J Wp_1760_2024

was allotted to State of Telangana. In the said proceedings also,

the petitioner's date of birth was mentioned as '10.01.1964'.

Therefore, as per Transfer Certificate (T.C.) dated 29.12.1977

and as per the proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.106, dated

24.05.2022, the petitioner's date of birth is '10.01.1964' only

but not '10.01.1963'. As such, there is no justification on the

part of respondent No.2 in insisting the petitioner not to attend

the office from 01.02.2024 and the same is illegal and arbitrary.

Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to direct respondent

No.2 to continue the petitioner in service until he attains the age

of superannuation in January, 2025.

4. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for the

respondents submitted that at the time of the petitioner's initial

appointment as a Cleaner, his date of birth was recorded in his

service register as 10.01.1963 and the same was also confirmed

by the petitioner duly endorsing it with his signature.

Subsequently, by rounding his actual date of birth i.e.,

10.01.1963, the entry was altered to 10.01.1964. Thereafter,

the same was once again struck down and recorded as

PK,J Wp_1760_2024

10.01.1963 (petitioner's original date of birth). Further, during

bifurcation, while the petitioner was working at IPM,

A.P.Gollapudi, Vijayawada, the APSRTC instructed employees to

submit their options along with relevant certificates.

Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a photocopy of his

Transfer Certificate, in which, at Sl.No.07, the reference to

"eighth class" was struck off and "ninth class" was written in its

place. However, the Roman numeral (VIII)B remained unaltered

suggesting a clear manipulation of the Transfer Certificate. It is

further submitted that in the service register, the date of birth of

the petitioner was recorded as 10.01.1963 and the said entry in

the service register is made much prior to the evidence

produced by the petitioner i.e., Aadhar, Pan Cards etc., which

was subsequently updated. Further, the petitioner was relieved

from service upon attaining the age of superannuation on the

afternoon of 31.01.2024 and intimation to this effect was also

communicated to his residential address and the same was also

acknowledged by his daughter. It is further submitted that the

petitioner has raised the age dispute at the fag end of service

PK,J Wp_1760_2024

with a mala fide intention and correction of the petitioner's date

of birth at this stage is contrary to the Rules. Therefore, learned

Government Pleader prays this Court to dismiss the present

Writ Petition. In support, learned Government Pleader relied on

a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v.

Harnam Singh 1.

5. This Court has taken note of the submissions made by

learned counsel for the respective parties.

6. A perusal of record discloses that the petitioner was

initially appointed as Cleaner vide proceedings No.195/E3/91,

dated 23.06.1992 and his services in the said cadre were

regularized w.e.f. 24.06.1992 vide proceedings, dated

13.04.1994. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as

Office Subordinate on 01.06.2003. The main issue in the

present Writ Petition pertains to the date of birth of the

petitioner, which he claims to be 10.01.1964, thereby, he would

retire from service on 31.01.2024 only. In this context, it is

pertinent to refer to the petitioner's service register, wherein his

1993 (2) SCC 162

PK,J Wp_1760_2024

date of birth was clearly recorded as 10.01.1963 at the time of

his initial appointment, which was duly confirmed by his

signature. However, the records indicate that the said date of

birth was altered to 10.01.1964 and thereafter, yet again as

10.01.1963 with the previous alteration being struck down. It is

also relevant to note that in G.O.Ms.No.106, dated 24.05.2022,

the petitioner's date of birth was shown as 10.01.1964,

however, this does not override the original entry recorded in

the service register, which was also confirmed by the petitioner

himself at the time of his appointment. Moreover, the petitioner

was notified of his superannuation date as 31.01.2024 based on

the original date of birth and the same was acknowledged by his

family. Despite the same, the petitioner has not provided any

valid grounds for disputing this notice and is seeking correction

of his date of birth at the fag end of his service. In this regard,

it is pertinent to observe that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Harnam Singh's case (1 supra), categorically held that 'A

Government servant who makes an application for correction of

date of birth beyond the time, so fixed, therefore, cannot claim, as

PK,J Wp_1760_2024

a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth even if he has

good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is

clearly erroneous'.

7. In Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and others v. Dinabandhu

Majumdar and another 2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at

paragraph No.10 held as under:

"Entertainment by High Courts of writ applications made by employees of the Government or its instrumentalities at the fag end of their services and when they are due for retirement from their services, in our view, is unwarranted. It would be so for the reason that no employee can claim a right to correction of birth date and entertainment of such writ applications for correction of dates of birth of some employees of Government or its instrumentalities will mar the chances of promotion of their juniors and prove to be an undue encouragement to the other employees to make similar applications at the fag end of their service careers with the sole object of preventing their retirements when due. Extraordinary nature of the jurisdiction vested in the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution, in our considered view, is not meant to make employees of Government or its instrumentalities to continue in service beyond the period of their entitlement according to dates of birth accepted by their employers, placing reliance on the so-called newly-found material."

2 (1995) 4 SCC 172

PK,J Wp_1760_2024

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary &

Commissioner, Home... v. R. Kirubakaran 3, has held that

request for rectification of date of birth has to be made at the

earliest point of time. The law laid down in Kirubakaran's (3

supra) has also been followed by the Apex Court in its several

other subsequent judgments. Relevant observations of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kirubakaran's case (3 supra) are as

under:

"An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the Tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in officer, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose the promotion for ever. Cases are not unknown when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. According to us, this is an important aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the Court or the Tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such, unless a clear case on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent, the Court or the Tribunal should not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim only

3 AIR 1993 SC 2647

PK,J Wp_1760_2024

plausible. Before any such direction is issued, the court or the Tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application has to be filed, than such application must be filed within the time, which can be held to be reasonable. The application has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus in on the applicant, to prove about the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book. In many cases it is a part of the strategy on the part of such public servants to approach the Court or the Tribunal on the eve of their retirement, questioning the correctness of the entries in respect of their dates of birth in the service books. By this process, it has come to the notice of this Court that in many cases, even if ultimately their applications are dismissed, by virtue of interim orders, they continue for months, after the date of superannuation. The Court or the Tribunal must, therefore, be slow in granting an interim relief for continuation in service, unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated, but if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and merely caused injustice to his immediate junior."

9. Coming to the case on hand, the delay on the part of the

petitioner in raising the issue of his date of birth, particularly at

the fag end of his service, raises doubt about the

validity/veracity of his claim. Furthermore, the petitioner has

failed to provide any valid/legal justification or evidence to

PK,J Wp_1760_2024

support his claim of alteration of his date of birth, particularly

since he had previously confirmed the original entry. Thus,

viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any merit in the

present Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall