[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

G. Narayana vs The Telangana State Road Transport ... on 30 March, 2026

 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                 AT HYDERABAD

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
              WRIT PETITION No.33785 of 2023
                  THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2026

Between:
G.Narayana.
                                                   ...Petitioner
                               AND
The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation,
Rep. by its Managing Director and others.
                                                ...Respondents
ORDER:

Heard Sri P.Venkateswar Rao, learned Counsel for the

petitioner, Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for the

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation appearing for

the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 and the learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the

respondent No.2. Perused the material on record.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this

Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents

in altering the date of birth of the petitioner from 25.07.1968

to 06.03.1966, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that

the petitioner joined as Driver in the respondent-Corporation

in the year, 2000 and his services were regularized on

01.01.2009. Initially, the petitioner's date of birth in the

service record was recorded as 06.03.1966 and thereafter,,

the Road Transport Corporation (RTC) issued Circular No.PD-

11/2011, dated 31.03.2011, for correct recording of the date

of birth of employees in service records and in the

PMS/payrolls of the employees in the respondent-

Corporation. The respondents verified the service record of

the petitioner and as per the verification, the petitioner's date

of birth was recorded as 25.07.1968. While it being so,

without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without any

proceedings, the respondents asked the petitioner to retire

from service with effect from 31.03.2026 on the ground that

the date of the birth of the petitioner was recorded as

06.03.1966 in the service record.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that

the petitioner was not having any qualification at the time of

joining duty. The petitioner's date of birth was mentioned in

his driving license as 25.07.1968, even prior to his joining

duty. In view of the same, after verification as per Circular

No.PD-11/2011, dated 31.03.2011, the respondents had

altered the date of birth of the petitioner to 25.07.1968, along

with other employees. Without issuing any notice to the

petitioner, the respondents had again altered the date of the

birth of the petitioner as 06.03.1966. The said action of the

respondents is illegal and arbitrary and in view of the same,

learned Counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to

allow the Writ Petition by declaring the date of birth of the

petitioner as 25.07.1968 and directing the respondents to

continue him in service till his superannuation by treating

the said date as date of birth of the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing

for the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4, basing on the counter

affidavit submits that, as per the Service Regulations of the

Corporation, the age of an employee is to be assessed as

under:

"As per regulation 19 (2) (b) of TSRTC Service Regulation, 1964, "where the person concerned is unable to furnish satisfactory evidence of his age, it should be assessed by a Medical Officer of the Corporation and the age so assessed of the age as

declared by the person, whichever is more, shall be accepted as final and the employee shall be assumed to have completed that age on the date of attestation by the Medical Officer".

6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent

Nos.1, 3 and 4 further submits that, in accordance with the

above provisions, the petitioner was examined by the Medical

Officer for assessment of age at the time of recruitment and

since the petitioner had not submitted any educational

certificates to establish proof of age or date of birth before the

appointing authority, the Medical Officer assessed the

petitioner's age as 34 years as on 06.03.2000 vide Medical

Certificate No.AO/0288. Based on this certification, the

petitioner's date of birth was determined as 06.03.1966. The

then Selection Committee, while following the procedure, had

followed the rules and regulations existing during that period.

In view of the above provisions, there are no merits in the

Writ Petition and requested to dismiss the same.

7. After hearing both sides and on a perusal of the entire

material on record, this Court is of the considered view that

there is no dispute with regard to the petitioner joining duty

in the respondent-Corporation in the year, 2000 and his

services being regularized on 01.01.2009. At the time of

joining duty, in the service record, the petitioner's date of

birth was recorded as 06.03.1966 and it is also not disputed

that the date of the birth of the petitioner was altered as

25.07.1968 in pursuance of Circular No.PD-11/2011, dated

31.03.2011, issued by the respondent-Corporation.

Thereafter, the respondents once again informed the

petitioner that they are treating his date of birth as

06.03.1966 and informed the petitioner that his date of

retirement is 31.03.2026. Aggrieved by the said action of the

respondents, the petitioner filed the instant Writ Petition.

8. At the time of arguments, this Court directed the

respondents to produce the original service records pertaining

to the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel produced

the original record on 25.03.2026. A perusal of the records

clearly shows that, initially, the petitioner's date of birth was

recorded in the service record as 06.03.1966. Thereafter, in

pursuance of Circular No.PD-11/2011, dated 31.03.2011, it

was corrected as 25.07.1968 and the same was signed by the

competent authorities with seal as per the said circular. In

the same service record, the said entry was rounded off and

once again the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned

as 06.03.1966, signed by the Assistant Manager, TSRTC,

Nalgonda, without any mention with regard to the

proceedings or notice to the petitioner. Moreover, there is no

date of signature on the said entry. It clearly shows that, after

the date of birth of the petitioner was altered from 06.03.1966

to 25.09.1968 in pursuance of the Circular No.PD-11/2011,

dated 31.03.2011, without issuing any notice to the petitioner

and without any proceedings, the respondents are now

asking the petitioner to retire from service on 31.03.2026 on

the ground that the petitioner's date of birth is recorded in

the service record as 06.09.1966.

9. The contention of the respondents is that they have

followed Regulation 19(3) r/w. 19(2)(b) of the RTC Employees

(Service) Regulations, 1964 at the time the petitioner joined

duties. But they have not disputed with regard to Circular

No.PD-11/2011, dated 31.03.2011. In view of the same, the

respondents cannot now rely on Regulation 19 of the said

Regulations, which was relaxed by issuance of Circular

No.PD-11/2011, dated 31.03.2011 and also after following

the procedure as contemplated in the circular, altered the

date of birth of the petitioner as 25.07.1968. In view of the

same, the respondents have to continue the petitioner in

service treating his date of birth as 25.07.1968.

10. The Division Bench of this Court in P.Pochamma vs.

Principal Secretary, Technical Education, Govt. of

Andhra Pradesh and others1, at para-Nos.8, 10 and 11,

held as under:

"8. There are various other judgments referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, which pertain to claim of employees for change of date of birth and it has been consistently held by the Supreme Court that date of birth as entered in the service register should not be ordered to be changed unless there is unimpeachable evidence. The same principle will apply to the employer who wants to change the recorded date of birth an employee.

10. .....whereas in the present case the I writ petitioner was not retired on the accepted date of birth as entered in her service register, whereas in the present case the I writ petitioner was not retired on the accepted date of birth as entered in her service register, but on the basis of date arrived at by the respondents on the basis of a forensic expert which was not even ever put to the petitioner. The petitioner was not even given a chance to show-cause as to whether the report of the forensic expert obtained in 1994 should be relied upon or not. She was not even given a chance to show that the certificate issued in her favour in 1983 by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Chintakunta village was genuine.

1 2004 (4) ALT 156 (DB)

11. For these reasons we allow the writ appeal, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and direct that the writ petitioner shall be reinstated into service with all consequential benefits. No order as to costs."

11. The above findings of the Division Bench of this Court in

P.Pochamma (supra) squarely apply to the facts of the

present case. In the instant case, in implementation of the

Circular No.PD-11/2011, dated 31.03.2011, the respondents

altered the date of birth of the petitioner from 06.03.1966 to

25.07.1968. The respondents failed to show any proceedings

on record with regard to changing of the entry as 25.09.1968

to 06.03.1966 by following procedure as well as issuing any

notice to the petitioner. Without doing the same, the said

entry of date of birth was changed by the Assistant Manager,

TSRTC, Nalgonda, who is not a competent authority to alter

the date of birth of the petitioner. In view of the same, the