Allowed

Md. Rahamathulla v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC9 Aug 2011WP/17843/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Court allowed the plea to set aside proceedings that attempted to alter the petitioner's date of birth. The petitioner joined an APSRTC service in 1973 without birth proof, leading to a notionally determined date of 19-10-1953. The Court held this date cannot be altered without substantial proof.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; impugned proceedings are set aside; petitioner's date of birth treated as 19-10-1953.

Md. Rahamathulla Vs The Andhra Pradesh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.17843 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner joined the service of the A.P.S.R.T.C. in the year 1973 as a Shramik. Since he did not have any proof about his date of birth, he was subjected to medical examination, and his age was assessed to be 20 years. On the basis of that certification, the date of birth was mentioned as 19-10-1953.

¶5

The Depot Manager, Ongole, the 2^nd respondent herein, issued notice dated 25-05-2011, directing the petitioner to explain as to why his date of birth be not corrected as 01-07-1953, as per the entries in the application. The petitioner submitted his explanation, and not satisfied with that, the 2^nd respondent issued notification dated 04-062011, informing the petitioner that his date of birth was recorded as 0107-1953, and that he will retire from service on 30-06-2011. Hence, this writ petition.

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶7

The petitioner mentioned his date of birth as 01-07-1953 in the application. However, since the application is not accompanied by any proof of date of birth, he was subjected to medical examination. On the basis of such examination, the date of birth was notionally determined by the Corporation as 19-10-1953.

¶8

Once that is entered, it is not open, either for the petitioner or for the respondents to alter the date, unless substantial proof to the contrary

¶9

exists.

¶10

The only basis for the 2^nd respondent to alter the date of birth of the petitioner was, the entry in the application form submitted by the petitioner in the year 1973. When that was not believed, and a different date was entered by the Corporation itself, it was totally impermissible for the 2^nd respondent to take steps to alter the date of birth of the petitioner.

¶11

The writ petition is accordingly allowed, and the impugned proceedings are set aside. The date of birth of the petitioner shall be treated as 19-10-1953 for retirement and other related purposes.

¶12

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

_______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶14

Dt.09-08-2011.

¶15

Md. Rahamathulla v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Rahamathulla v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

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

D.Sudhakar Reddy, Vs The Registrar

M. Kurumurthy Vs The Regional Manager Apsrtc

N.Venkataiah, S/o Jangaiah, Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

Kondamudi Rani Vs The Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company

M.Rajamani Vs Andhra Pradesh Residential Educational Institutions

M.I.Praveen Kumar Vs The Apgenco