K Dharma Raju, E.G.Dist. Vs Apsrtc., Hyderabad, & 2 Otrs.

“…..to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in Retiring the Petitioner abruptly by altering the date of birth recorded in the Service Register as early as in the year 1988 i.e, from 27.01.1960 to 14.07.1954 at the fag end of the service of the petitioner vide Proc.No.P1/255(2)/2016-GKRM Dt. 4.3.2017 by retiring the petitioner with retrospective effect from 31.7.2012 as high handed and arbitrary action contrary to APSRTC Regulations without jurisdiction capricious

¶22

2

¶23

violative of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to the respondents to extend all the benefits and wages from 11.1.2016 forthwith….”

¶24

2. At the stage of admission, the following interim orders were passed in W.P.M.P No.13695 of 2017:-

¶25

“When the petitioner joined in service, his date of birth was recorded as 27.01.1960. When the petitioner sought promotion to Assistant Depot Clerk, the respondent - Corporation noticed that he earlier declared his date of birth as 14.07.1954 and therefore a wrong date of birth was entered.

¶26

It is not in dispute that the petitioner's date of birth was recorded as 27.01.1960 and it is not the case of the respondent - Corporation that the petitioner made a false declaration which was the basis for such entry.

¶27

Regulation 19 of the Service Regulations deals with the date of birth and a reading of the same would show that once date of birth is recorded, it is final and it cannot be altered. The respondent - Corporation is now trying to emphasise that according to Regulation 19 (2) (b) of the Service Regulations, if the declaration given by a person is higher, the same would be accepted. This Regulation is related to the initial stage of entry into service.

¶28

Prima facie I am of the view that alteration now undertaken by the respondent-Corporation is ex facie illegal and also contrary to the Regulations of the respondent - Corporation. Balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner.

¶29

Hence, there shall be interim suspension, as prayed for.”

¶30

The said interim orders are still subsisting.

¶31

3

¶32

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner reports that the petitioner had retired from the service on 31.01.2018 and submits that in view of the interim orders passed by this Court, no further orders are necessary. However, the learned counsel submits that there are some arrears, pending from the respondent Corporation.

¶33

The learned Standing Counsel has not objected to the submission

¶34

made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of retirement of the petitioner, and he has no instructions in respect of the pending arrears of the petitioner.

¶35

Recording the above said submissions, the writ petition is closed. It is open to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent authorities with regard to his pending arrears, if any.

¶36

There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.

¶37

Date: 17.04.2025 GVK

¶38

_______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶39

4

¶40

51

¶41

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM