Disposed

U.Madhu Kumar v. The Chairman and Managing Director

Telangana HC14 Nov 2011WP/31928/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's representations regarding the correction of his date of birth in service records and pass appropriate orders within two months without deciding the merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent authorities to consider petitioner's representations and pass appropriate orders within two months.

U.Madhu Kumar Vs The Chairman and Managing… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.31928 of 2010 Dated 14-11-2011

Between:

U.Madhu Kumar.

…Petitioner.

And:

The Chairman and Managing Director, E.C.I.L. (Electronic Corporation of India Ltd.,) ECIL, Hyderabad and others.

¶7

…Respondents.

¶8

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.31928 of 2010 ORDER:

¶9

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in changing the date of birth of the petitioner as 14-6-1954 instead of 14-6-1956 after 22 years long service without any notice or opportunity, as highly illegal, arbitrary and consequently, direct the respondents to correct his date of birth as 14-6-1956 in accordance with the Technical High School Certificate issued by the A.P.State Board of Technical Education and Training and other relevant records.

¶10

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

¶11

He was employed in the respondent- corporation on 2-1-1976 as Trades Man A Trainee basing on the provisional certificate pending issuance of the Technical High School Certificate wherein the date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 14-6-1954 pending correction. Thereafter, the petitioner received the original certificate from the Board on 10-12-1979 after necessary correction done by the Board wherein the date of birth was rightly corrected and entered as 14-6-1956 and

¶12

thereafter, immediately, the petitioner submitted the certificate and requested for correction in his service records and also submitted a representation on 22-2-1980. Accordingly, the respondents corrected the date of birth of the petitioner and issued identity cards also in the year 1980 showing the petitioner’s date of birth as 14-6-1956 as per records, and thereafter the same date was continued in all further records.

¶13

In the year, 2002 when the petitioner working as ATO (Assistant Technical Officer), the respondentCorporation renewed the old ID card and issued a fresh ID card where the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 14-6-1954 instead of 14-6-1956 though already rectified and in this connection, he again submitted representations on 22-8-2002 to the Personal Manager requesting for correction of the date of birth for which the petitioner received the stock reply stating that it is under consideration. After waiting for a long time, once again the petitioner submitted representations on 30-102009, 28-6-2010 and 4-10-2010. But there is no response from the respondents. Hence, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking to direct the respondent-Corporation to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 14-6-1956.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel.

¶15

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though the date of birth of the petitioner was rectified in the records previously on the representations of the petitioner, the respondentcorporation has again wrongly mentioned the date of birth of the petitioner while issuing fresh I.D.Card to the petitioner and hence, this action of the respondentauthorities is illegal, arbitrary and hence he seeks this Court to direct the respondent-authorities to correct the date of birth in the fresh I.D.Card as well as other relevant records.

¶16

Perused the material available on record.

¶17

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, without going into the merits of the case, I feel it just and proper to direct the respondentauthorities to consider the representations made by the petitioner in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶19

____________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 14-11-2011. Note: Issue CC in two weeks. BO Dvs

¶20

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.31928 of 2010 Dated 14-11-2011

U.Madhu Kumar v. The Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.Madhu Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Duba Venkata Ramana Vs The District Collector/District Programme Coordinator

B. Srinu, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corp Limited

Keluth Dasma Vs The a.P.Power Generation Corporation Limited

Boosa Rajaiah Vs The Chief General Manager

P.R.K. Swamy, Vs The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C.

I.Chandra Sekhar Reddy Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation