This intra-court appeal was dismissed. The court held that a retired employee cannot seek alteration of his date of birth in service records to qualify for additional monetary benefits, as the recorded date based on medical assessment is binding.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY
and
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT APPEAL NO : 73 of 2010
Between: Md. Khaliq
..... APPELLANT
AND
The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Mahabubnagar Region, Mahabubnagar District & Another.
.....RESPONDENTS
The Court made the following :
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT APPEAL No.73 OF 2010
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy)
This intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent is directed against the orders of the learned Single Judge, dated 4.8.2009 dismissing W.P.No.20696 of 2008 filed by the appellant to treat his date of birth as per his driving license as 29.6.1954 instead of 29.5.1950.
Appellant was appointed as a driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in the year 1984 mentioning his date of birth as 29.6.1954 as recorded in his driving license. According to the appellant, while working at Mahabubnagar Depot, he was called upon to appear for the medical examination on 16.11.2007 and accordingly, he appeared for the examination at the hospital of the Corporation at Tarnaka, Hyderabad and after THE examination, he was declared unfit for service in class A.1 category. Accordingly, he retired from service on 24.3.2008 as medically unfit. While granting retirement benefits, the additional monetary benefits and other retirement benefits were denied by the Corporation on the ground that his service is not sufficient considering his date of birth as 29.5.1950. Therefore, he made a representation to the second respondent on 20.8.2008 with a request to treat his date of birth as 29.6.1954 instead of 29.5.1950 as recorded in his driving license. As the same has not evinced any response, he filed W.P.No.20696 of 2008 contending that at the time of appointment on 24.11.1984, his date of birth in the service register was recorded as 29.6.1954 basing on his driving license, but subsequently, the same
was recorded as 29.5.1950 without any notice to him and in fact, he came to know the said fact only on 25.5.2008 when the second respondent issued the calculation of additional monetary benefit proceeding sheet reflecting his date of birth as 29.5.1950.
In the writ petition, the respondents-Corporation filed a counter affidavit contending that in the service register of the appellant, as per medical certificate No.05793, dated 29.5.1984, his date of birth was recorded as 29.6.1950 and that in the option-cum-nomination form of Staff benevolent-cum-Thrift (SBT), dated 9.5.1988, the appellant himself mentioned his date of birth as 1950. At no point of time, the appellant sought for alteration of his date of birth and therefore, he cannot seek such alteration after his retirement on medical grounds. It is the case of the respondents-Corporation that as per Regulation 19(1) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964 (for short ‘Regulations’), every person, on entering the service of the Corporation has to declare his date of birth which shall not differ from any declaration, express or implied, made by him for any public purpose before entering such service, and for this purpose, the date of birth as recorded in a school or college certificate shall be adopted without any modification. Regulation 19(2) also envisages that ‘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 or the age as declared by the person, whichever is mare, 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.’ As per the said Regulations, basing on the medical certificate issued by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, APSRTC Hospital, Tarnaka, Hyderabad, dated 29.5.1984, the appellant’s date of birth was entered in his service record as 29.6.1950.
Considering the rival claim, the learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order holding that the date of birth of the appellant was entered in his service record as 29.6.1950 as per the medical certificate No.05793, dated 29.5.1984 issued by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, APSRTC Hospital, Tarnaka, Hyderabad in which, the appellant’s age was certified to be 34 years as on the date of his appointment. Further as the appellant was unable to furnish satisfactory evidence of his age, the respondents-Corporation had rightly got it assessed by the Medical Officer and as per the certificate issued by him, the appellant’s date of birth was recorded as 29.6.1950 at the time of his appointment, and that as per 19(3) of the Regulations, the date so recorded is binding on the appellant.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned standing counsel for the respondents-Corporation.
Considering the dispute, we have once again gone through the service register and other particulars of the appellant as maintained by the respondents-Corporation. In the medical certificate No.05793, dated 29.5.1984, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, APSRTC Hospital, Tarnaka, Hyderabad assessed the age of the appellant at 34 years which means, he was born in the year 1950. Further in the form relating to the employees’ family pension scheme, 1971, which bears the signature of the appellant, his date of birth was mentioned as 1950. The APSRTC Staff benevolent-cum-Thrift-Scheme Option-cumNomination Form also discloses the date of birth of the appellant as 1950. But, so far, the appellant has not disputed the said entry reflecting his date of birth as 1950 in the service register or the above records. However, basing on his driving license, the appellant insists the respondents-Corporation for correction of his date of birth as
29.6.1954 as reflected therein.
It is a well settled proposition that an entry in any public record or official register or record, though a relevant fact under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, is not conclusive presumptive proof of what is entered therein and one cannot insist that the said entry must be acted upon as conclusive proof of what is stated therein (see C.V. Vijayarangam v. State Bank of India & Others [1986 (3) SLR 101 (SC)]; Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit [AIR 1988 SC 1796]. Further the appellant having retired from service on 24.3.2008 cannot seek change of date of birth in the records with a view to gain qualification for availing the additional monetary benefits. No infirmity is discernable with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition.
The Writ Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
________________
_______________________ FEBRUARY 24, 2010 VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. Tsr.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a retired government employee can seek correction of his date of birth in service records to gain qualification for additional monetary benefits.
Whether an entry in a public record like a service register is conclusive presumptive proof under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
C.V. Vijayarangam v. State Bank of India & OthersReferred¶24
C.V. Vijayarangam v. State Bank of India & Others [1986 (3) SLR 101 (SC)]
Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand PurohitReferred¶24
Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit [AIR 1988 SC 1796] · Who else cites this
Md. Khaliq
The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Mahabubnagar Region
Another
A. Gopal Reddy
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
