Allowed

Deputy Executive Engineer, v. Naram Nukaraju

Telangana HC18 Sept 2014WP/5034/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an Administrative Tribunal order reinstating a retired employee. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in directing reinstatement because the Rules bar alteration of a Service Register entry unless the person challenges it at the Register's opening. The representation was made 23 years later, precluding alteration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the Administration Tribunal dated 26.08.2002 was set aside with no order as to costs.

Deputy Executive Engineer, Vs Naram Nukaraju — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU AND THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.5034 OF 2003

¶3

ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶4

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed challenging the Order, dated 26.08.2002, in Original Application No.3244 of 2000 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

¶5

2. The aforementioned Original Application was filed challenging the notices, dated 06.05.2000 and 19.06.2000 issued by the 1^st respondent therein along with service book of the applicant therein, as they are contrary to the original letter of the District Employment Exchange Officer in Procs.No.A2/0/919/76, dated 22.11.1976 and the Original Medical Certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, Government General Hospital, Kakinada on 04.01.1984 and set aside the notices issued by the 1^st respondent on 06.05.2000 and 19.06.2000 declaring the retirement date of the applicant as on 30.06.2004 and not earlier.

¶6

3. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, allowed the Original Application directing the official respondents therein to reinstate the applicant into service with immediate effect and take steps to retire him only on 30.06.2004 on completion of the age of superannuation and that his break up in service during the period from 01.07.2000 till his reinstatement should be treated as ‘on duty’ for the purpose of his pension only and not for payment of back wages.

¶7

4. Learned Government Pleader for Services contended that representation was made by the applicant after lapse of 20 years from the date of entering into service; that once date of birth is entered into Service Register, it cannot be altered; and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶8

5. None appears for the respondent in spite of the matter being posted under the caption ‘for judgment’.

¶9

6. Though the applicant was selected temporarily, he was appointed as work-charged watchman vide Proceedings Rc.No.F2/1103/76, dated 24.11.1976. In the Service Register his date of birth was entered as ‘1940’. The Service Register was opened on 12.12.1979. After lapse of 23 years, he made a representation.

¶10

7. It is the specific case of the department that the entries made in the Service Register are based upon the certificates and documents produced by the individual at the time of opening of the Service Register. On verification of the Service Register, date of birth of the applicant was mentioned as ‘01.07.1940.’ Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 (for short, ‘the Rules’), does not provide for alteration of the date of birth once recorded and accepted by the individual. Rule 4 of the Rules is very specific with regard to this aspect. The applicant has not challenged the entry in the Service Register as incorrect at any point of time. Just one year before his retirement, he made a representation, which was not accepted. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the entry made in the Service Register is to be a clerical error only and there is no material filed by the applicant to show that his correct

¶11

date of birth is 01.07.1940. In the absence of any material, especially when the date of birth was entered into the Service Register as 01.07.1940, it cannot be altered in terms of Rule 4 of the Rules. Therefore, a direction cannot be given to the authorities to act contrary to the Rules governing the superannuation. The direction of the Tribunal is contrary to the Rules and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶12

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed settling aside the impugned Order, dated 26.08.2002, in Original Application No.3244 of 2000 passed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶13

JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶14

___________ JUSTICE ANIS

¶15

Date:18.09.2014 INL

Deputy Executive Engineer, v. Naram Nukaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deputy Executive Engineer, v. Naram Nukaraju

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

Y.Rajasekhar Reddy.Medak. Vs D.R.Ordnance Factories BOARD.KOLKOTA.AND1

P.B.K. Murthy Vs Ministry of Railways

Smt. Dornala Vidya Praveena, Vs The Honorable Consumer Disputes Redressal

C.Seetharamaiah Vs The Principal Accountant General (Audit-I)

Ellina Prasantakumar , Raja Vs Smt. Pasumarthy Venkataramana

Koneru Anand Vs Government of India