Allowed

Shaik Nizam, v. The Chairman and Managing Director

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Jul 2022WP/5168/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged a retirement notice issued based on a wrong date of birth recorded in the service register. The High Court examined documentary evidence, found the petitioner's age to be younger than the official record, and held the impugned memo illegal and arbitrary, granting relief to set it aside.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Memo dated 23.01.2020 fixing the retirement date as 28.02.2021 was declared illegal and set aside.

Shaik Nizam, Vs The Chairman and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.5168 of 2021

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶5

Constitution of India for the following relief:-

¶6

“ to issue a Writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the notice for retirement on superannuation vide Memo No.DE/C/JAO/ Adm/C2/D.No.2193/19, dated 23.01.2020 issued by the 3^rd respondent by mentioning the date of birth of the petitioner as 04.02.1961 instead of 04.02.1962 without giving any notice or opportunity and fixing the date of retirement as 28.02.2021 is illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice, contrary to the guidelines issued in the Boards Memo No. DM(IR)/PO.3/104/87-1, dated 29.01.1987 and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned Memo No. DE/C/JAO/ Adm/C2/D.No.2193/19, dated 23.01.2020 issued by the 3^rd respondent and to grant such other or further orders……. ”

¶7

Heard Mr. Prabhunath Vasireddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL, appearing for the respondents 1 to 4.

¶8

Brief facts of the case are that :

¶9

The petitioner is joined in the service of A.P.S.E.B on 15.09.1983 as helper and subsequently he was promoted as Lineman/ Driver in the respondent/ corporation. The 3^rd respondent issued impugned notice of retirement on superannuation vide Memo dated 23.01.2020 showing the wrong date of birth of the petitioner as 04.02.1961 and directed to submit the pension proposals and it was also mentioned that the petitioner have to retire from service on 28.02.2021 A.N. At the time of joining into service the petitioner date of birth is

¶10

¶11

mentioned as 04.02.1961 in the service register. As per service register the petitioner has to attain superannuation by 28.02.2022. The petitioner made representation dated 18.05.2020 to the 3^rd respondent stating that the date of birth of the petitioner is 04.02.1962 and the same is recorded in the service register and requested the 3^rd respondent to issue revised notice and delete the name of the petitioner from the impugned notice. The 3^rd respondent issued Memo dated 26.05.2020 directed the petitioner to submit documents/ certificates pertaining to date of birth of the petitioner for taking further steps. On 09.09.2020 the petitioner submitted School Certificate dated 07.07.2020 issued by the Morarji Mpl.Corp.Ele.School, Anantapur along with other relevant documents, which contain the date of birth as 04.02.1962. The respondents have not taken any action on the representations of the petitioner till date, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition came to be filed.

¶12

4. Per contra, the respondents 1 to 4 filed counter affidavit denying all material averments made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that at the time of joining in the service, the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 04.02.1962. At the time of digitalization of the Service Registers, it was noticed that the record sheet of the petitioner was available in the service register of the petitioner, which shows that the petitioner has studied up to 5^th class at P.S.Elementary School, Madirepalli and his date of birth is 04.02.1961. Accordingly, his date of birth has been corrected in the service register based on the said record sheet. Further there is discrepancy found in the Study Certificate of the petitioner with regard to name of the father of the petitioner.

¶13

¶14

Therefore an enquiry was initiated and found that the record sheet, which was available in the service register with Admn No.472 was issued to Neelapala Lakshmanna S/o N. Nagaraju of Madirepalli, but not to the petitioner. The date of birth which was entered earlier in the service register without any tangible evidence by the then officials is now rectified based on the evidence available on record. Hence the petitioner has no right to continue in the duty beyond 28.02.2021 and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

¶15

5. As could be seen from the Study Certificate issued by the Morarji Mpl.Corp.Ele.School, Anantapur, wherein it was mentioned the date of birth of the petitioner is 04.02.1962, so also in the Annexure, dated 25.08.2007, the name of the petitioner is shown in Sl.No.4 and his date of birth is shown as 04.02.1962 and date of completion of service is mentioned as 05.07.2002 A.N, which was issued by the Superintending Engineer (Operation), Anantapur. The AADAAR card and also Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate of the petitioner would show that the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 04.02.1962.

¶16

6. Therefore, it is apparent on the face of the record that the date of birth of the petitioner is 04.02.1962 as per the documents referred to above. The service book of the petitioner is also shows that the date of birth of the petitioner is 04.02.1962, which is sufficient to prove the exact date of birth of the petitioner. Whereas the respondents would contend that during digitalization of the service records, basing on a record sheet the

¶17

¶18

date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 04.02.1961, except that no such document is placed on record by the respondents. Apart from the enquiry report also clearly reveals that the petitioner date of birth is 04.02.1962. Hence this Court disbelieves the contentions of the respondents in view non production of authenticated documents to substantiate their plea and upon perusal of the records submitted by the petitioner, it is made clear that the date of birth of the petitioner is declared as 04.02.1962.

¶19

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, upon perusal of the record and considering the submissions of the learned counsel, this Court declaring the impugned Memo No.DE/C/JAO/Adm/C2/D.No.2193/19, dated 23.01.2020 issued by the 3^rd respondent by mentioning the wrong date of birth of the petitioner and fixing the date of retirement as 28.02.2021 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the same.

¶20

8. With the above observation, this Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

¶22

______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

Date : 21-07-2022

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.5168 of 2021

¶28

Date : 21.07.2022

¶29

Shaik Nizam, v. The Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Nizam, v. The Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gangiri Chinnammulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.a.Saleem, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

D.Sai babu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B. Chandra Sekhara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Pasa Ramayyamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B. Chandra Sekhara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh