Quashed

O.Ranga Lakshmi v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Telangana HC3 Aug 2011WP/27210/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition concerning conditional retirement due to alleged tampering of date of birth in service records. The High Court set aside the retirement order and directed the respondents to verify submitted certificates and reinstate the petitioner if authentic.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to verify certificates and reinstate petitioner if genuine within six weeks.

O.Ranga Lakshmi Vs The Government of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.27210 OF 2010

Between:

O. Ranga Lakshmi

..... PETITIONER

AND

The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others

¶11

....RESPONDENTS

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶14

WRIT PETITION No.27210 OF 2010

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

The petitioner joined the service of the 2^nd respondent corporation on 14.02.1984. Subsequently, her services were regularized from 05.11.1986. Her date of birth was mentioned in the Service Register as 15.06.1957.

¶17

The petitioner was issued a memo on 27.05.2009 alleging that her date of birth in the Service Register was tampered and she was required to submit the proof of her date of birth. The petitioner submitted an explanation on 16.06.2009, stating that from the beginning, her date of birth was only 15.06.1957 and there was no material to indicate that it

¶18

was in the result of any alteration. Not satisfied with that, the 2^nd respondent passed the order, dated 18.06.2010, directing conditional retirement of the petitioner with effect from 30.06.2010.

¶19

The petitioner submits that except making a vague and general allegation, the respondents did not indicate the basis for their action and subsequent to her retirement, she filed Certificates obtained from the office of Tahsildhar, Giddalur Mandal, Prakasam District, and Z.P. High School, Sanjeevaraopeta, Prakasam District, which discloses her date of birth as 15.06.1957.

¶20

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

¶21

The 2^nd respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner did not come forward with the proof of her date of birth in response to the memo, dated 27.05.2009.

¶22

The petitioner was issued the memo abruptly in the year 2009, alleging that her date of birth in the record was tampered. The only basis was the comparison between the entry made in the Service Register on the one hand, and the Seniority List on the other hand. It was not even alleged that there was any event of complaint from any one as to the genuinity of the entry. Obviously, because the petitioner was taken by surprise, she was not in possession of any valid material.

¶23

The petitioner was no doubt retired from service. However, it is felt that, in the event of any proof of date of birth of the petitioner coming forthnow, the respondents can revise the decision. Now that the petitioner has filed the Certificates obtained from the Tahsildhar and High School, the respondents can verify the authenticity of the same and pass appropriate orders.

¶24

Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that the respondents shall take into account the representation made by the

¶25

petitioner together with the Certificates filed by her and in case, it emerges that the said Certificates are true and genuine, they shall reinstate the petitioner into service and continue her till she attains the age of superannuation, as per the revised entries. This exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶27

August 03, 2011 MD

¶28

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.27210 OF 2010

¶30

August 03, 2011

¶31

O.Ranga Lakshmi v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

O.Ranga Lakshmi v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

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

M. Rami Reddy Vs The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, and Commissioner

Burla Sreelakshmi Vs Tanikonda Venkata Subbamma

Mangamuri Hanumantha Rao Vs Mangamuri Venkata Krishna Rao

S.Mahipal Reddy, S/o Malla Reddy, Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

Kurapati Stalin Vs Rebba Yesobu

Sajja Malleswara Rao Vs Sajja Nageswara rao