Dismissed

Dasari Maria Das S/o.Late Mataiah v. The Director of School Education

Telangana HC9 Dec 2016WP/13324/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought correction of his date of birth pursuant to a 1983 decree and release of pending pensionary benefits. The court dismissed the petition, finding no reason to direct alteration of the date of birth due to inordinate delay of 24 years in invoking jurisdiction, despite representations made to the Government.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed, and no direction was given to alter the petitioner's date of birth or release his pensionary benefits.

Dasari Maria Das S/o.Late Mataiah Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

Writ Petition No.13324 of 2007

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner seeks correction of his date of birth in terms of the decree passed in O.S.No.93 of 1982 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.

¶5

In his order dated 25.04.2007, the District Educational Officer referred to G.O.Ms.No.383 dated 16.11.1983 that alteration of the date of birth, pursuant to any orders passed by the Court, should not be taken into consideration in derogation of the rules; the Government had issued instructions, from time to time, regarding alteration of the date of birth in school and other records; and the request of the petitioner, for alteration of hs date of birth as 31.08.1950 instead of 15.06.1949, could not be considered as the decree was passed in the year 1983, 34 years ago.

¶6

Seeking implementation of the decree passed in 1983, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court 24 years thereafter in the year 2007. Learned Government Pleader for School Education would submit that the petitioner filed the Writ Petition just a few months prior to his retirement. No explanation is forth-coming for the inordinate delay and laches in invoking the jurisdiction of this Court.

¶7

Sri B.Venkatadri, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner cannot be said to hve approached this Court belatedly, as he had made several representations to the Government for alteration of his date of birth. The mere fact that the petitioner had submitted representations to the Government would not justify his failure to invoke the Writ jurisdiction of this Court for the past more than two decades, after the decree was passed. I see no

¶8

¶9

reason, therefore, to now direct the respondents to alter his date of birth.

¶10

Sri B.Venkatadri, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner’s pensionary benefits have also not been released so far. In case the pensionary benefits, which the petitioner is entitled to, have not been released, the respondents shall release the pensionary benefits at the earliest, and in any event within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶11

Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. The Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶12

RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ. Date:09.12.2016. cs

Dasari Maria Das S/o.Late Mataiah v. The Director of School Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dasari Maria Das S/o.Late Mataiah v. The Director of School Education

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

M/s. Alfa Laval (India) Limited, Vs M/s. Anrak Aluminium Limited

S. Anjaiah, Vs Apsrtc Represented by its Vice-chairman and Managing

Mr.S. Mohd Yakub Vs Tata Communications payment Solutions limited

Gunnam Kondaiah Vs Ap southern Power Distribution co.Ltd., rep.by its

G.Rambabu Vs The Chief Engineer (Operation and Maintenance)

V.Dharma Rao Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation