Dismissed

The State of Telangana Rep.by its Special Chief Secretary v. M.Narayana Reddy

Telangana HC25 Mar 2022WA/235/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a Writ Appeal against a High Court order entitlement. In the underlying writ petition, the earlier order held that service register entry and a 1986 decree declared the correct date of birth, but did not grant backwages. The High Court affirmed the lower order, allowing the appeal with terms. The present writ appeal filed by the State challenging the retirement order was dismissed, and the

What the court decided

AI extract

The State of Telangana Rep.by its Special… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA: AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF I,IARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶5

WRIT APPEAL NO: 235 OF 2017

¶6

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent^preferred against the order dated 04.08.2016 passed in WPNo.30409/2013 on the file of the High Court.

¶7

Between:

¶8

The State of Telangana Rep.by its Special Chief Secretary, to Government Education Department, Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad.

¶9

The District Educational Officer, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

¶10

The Deputy Educational Officer, Suryapet, Suryapet District.

¶11

...Appellants/Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in WP

¶12

AND

¶13

1 I/.Narayana Reddy, S/o.Veera Reddy aged about 55 yrs., Occ: Secondary Grade Teacher (Aided ) Saraswati Vidya Nilayam Suryapet , Nalgonda District.

¶14

. . . RespondenUWrit Petitioner

¶15

The Saraswati Vidya Nilayam Primary School (Aided ), Surypet, Nalgonda District , Rep.by its Correspondent.

¶16

... RespondenUResponde nt No.;4 in WP

¶17

WAMP. NO: 498 OF 2017

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order of the Hon'ble High Court passed in W.P.No. 30409 of 2013 d|.4.08.2016 pending disposal of the Writ Appeal.

¶19

Counsel for the Appellants: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI M.VENKAT RAM REDDY

¶21

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRI L.PRABHAKAR REDDY

¶22

The Court delivered the following:

¶23

¶24

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SAT ISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶26

1VRIT APPEAL No.235 OF 20t7

¶27

JUDGMENT, fp. r the Hon'ble the chtef Justice satish chandro shotma)

¶28

The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated 04.08.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.30409 of 2013.

¶29

The undisputed facts ol the case reveal that the respondent No.1/writ petitioner was appointed in the services of the respondent No.2/Saraswati Vidya Nilayam primary School (Aided), Suryapet, Nalgonda District, on temporary basis on 14.O7.1983. At the time of initial entry into service, he disclosed his date of birth as 06.02.1959 and at the relevant point of time, the school was not receiving grant-in-aid. The school was admitted to grant-in-aid with effect from 01.i1.19g9 and one post of S.G.B.T. was sanctioned. Even before the school was admitted to grant-in-aid, the respondent No.1/writ petitioner preferred a civil sr.rit in O.S.No.962 of 1985 and a judgment and decree was passed on 17.09.1986 declaring his date of birth as 06.02.1959 which is the date of birth mentioned at the time of inception in service. The Government was aware of his date of birth in the year 1989 and the same date ol birth

¶30

¶31

continued in service.^{However,somecomplaint was received by} the Government informing^{that the date of birth of the} respondent No. 1/writ^{petitioneris04.07.1955' Inthose} circumstances, action^{was initiatedagainst the respondent} No.1/writ^{petitioner and he was superannuatedon 31 07'2013'} The respondent No.1/writ^{petitioner has immediately rushed to} this Court and this^{Courthas granted lnterim order directing} the appellants/ State to^{continue him in service.However,he} was not permitted to continue^{and contempt petition was also} filed. Finally, the writ^{petitionitself was decidedin favour of the} respondent No.¹ /writ^petitioner.

¶32

The operative^portion of^{the orderpassedby the learned} Single Judge is reproduced^{as under:-}

¶33

"lt is clear from the^{abovefactsthat the date of birth of petitioner} was recorded as 06.02. 1959^{in the Service Registermaintainedby} respondent No.4 school.^{I havesummonedthe ServiceRegister and it} contained the said date of^{birth. It is not known on what basishe} declared the said date of birth,^{but the S.S.C.certificate contained} the date of birth as 04.07.1955.^{The petitionerfiledO.S. No.962 of} 1985 in the Court of District Munsiff^{at Suryapet'NalgondaDistrict} impleading the State and^{other parties as defendantsThe suit was} decreed on 17.09.1986 and it^{has becorne final. By that time, the} petitioner ['as working as Junior^{Assistant in respondentNo 4} school and when the school^{was admittedto grant-in-aid u'ith effect} lrom 01,11.1989, since he^{possessed the requisite qualification,he} was absorbed in the aided^{vacancyof S G.B.T.The petitioner} continued as such and^a1l the^{correspondencefrom respondentNo 4}

¶34

¶35

¶36

school contained the date of birth as 06.02.1959. When a complaint was received with regard to the date of birth of petitioner in the^year 2013, the petitioner was asked to produce the S.S,C. certificate, which he could not produce in original, but he filed a Xerox copy. However, on the basis of Xerox copy an order was passed by respondent No.2 on 07. 10.2013 asking the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 31.07.2013, but by virtue ofthe order^passed by this Court in the present rvrit petition on 24.10.2013, the petitioner continued to discharge his duties for some time. Since the prepondering evidence is on the side of petitioner and the Service Register contained the date of birth claimed by the petitioner viz., 06.02.1959, this Court is inclined to set aside the order oI respondent No,2 dated 07.i0,2013 and directs the respondent No.2 to pass orders taking the date of birth as 06.02.1959 and continue him in service till his superannuation as per the said date of birth. The petitioner shall be reinstated pursuant to the order in the present writ petition. He shall be allor,r,,ed to retire on superannuation taking the date of birth as 0(r.02.1959. However, with regard to payment of salary to the petitioner from the date of discontinuance, consequent to the order dated 07.10.2013 of respondent No.2 and continuance by virtue of the interim order of this Court dated 24.10.2013, the same shall be regulated by inspecting the records of respondent No.4 school. The petitioner shall not be entitled for the salary for the period he has not worked, however, he is entitled for all other benefits.

¶37

With the above observations, w.P. No.30409 of 2013 is allowed to the extent indicated above. In view of the disposal of writ petition itself, there is no need to proceed further with the contempt case, and accordingly, Contempt Case No.1224 of2015 is closed. No order as to costs

¶38

Miscellaneous Petitions^pending, if any, shali stand closed."

¶39

The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition

¶40

has not granted backwages to the respondent No.1/writ

¶41

¶42

petitioner, however^{has hcld that he will be entitled for all retiral} dues by treating^{him in servicet:p to 28'02'2017 '}

¶43

This Court^{has carefullygone throughthe order passed} by the learned^{Single Judge and perused the record' In the} present case, it is^{an undisputed fact that at the time the school} was admitted to^{grant-in-aid,the StateGovernmentwas} certainly aware^{of the dateof birth mentioned by the respondent} No.1/writ^{petitioner as 06 02 1959 There is also a judgment} and decree dated^{17.09.1986 passedin lavourof the respondent} No.1/writ^{petitionerin O.S.No.962of 1985 declaringhis date of} birth as 06.02.^{i959. The date of birth, which was initially} recorded in the^{service register in 1983, has continued up to} 2013 i.e.,^{the time the employer made an attempt to change the} date of birth to^{retire the respondent No'1/writ petitioner} prematurely.

¶44

In the considered^{opinion of this Court, the date of birth} recorded in the^{serviceregister at the time of inception in} service, has^{to be treatedas the correctdate of birth' keeping in} view the peculiar^{facts and circumstancesof the case' especially} in light ol the^{judgment and decreedated17 'O9 'I9a6passedin} O.S.No.962 of^{1985. The appellantshave also violatedthe} , principles of natural^{justice and fair play by retiring the}

V {

(

respondent^{No.1/writpetitioner prematurely' No enquiryof any} kindwasconductedwiththeparticipationoftherespondent No.1/employee^{and the employer,merely based upon the} anonymous^{complaint,has taken unilateral action inthe} matter.^{Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the order} the learned^{Single Judgedoes notwarrant} passed bY interference. The respondenl^{No.1/writpetitioner shallbe} entitled^for all terminal^{dues by treating his serviceup to} 28.02.2017. However,^{he shal1 not be entitled for backwages'}

¶49

Resultantly,^{the writ appeal stands dismissed'} Pending miscellaneous^{applications' if any' shail} stand

¶50

¶51

closed. There^{shail be no order as to costs'}

¶52

sD/- cHbvEEmF:H,tTHhH ( ,)u ,TRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶53

To, 1.^{Two CCsto the GPfor SchoolEducation' High Court for the State of} 2. H:T:isbti'"m'+-er'rFBBJvilx""'?lil?5H3t' 4. Two C.D.^CoPies' E One^SPareCoPY' MRC

HIGH GOURT

HCJ & AKSJ

DATED:2510312022

1
a'
05 t

JUDGMENT

WA.No.235 ot²⁰¹⁷

DISMISSING THE^{WRIT APPEAL} WITHOUT COSTS

The State of Telangana Rep.by its Special Chief Secretary v. M.Narayana Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The State of Telangana Rep.by its Special Chief Secretary v. M.Narayana Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Ravi Sankar, Vs The Industrial Tribunal-Ii

R.S Traders Vs The State of Telangana

K. Parimala Reddy, Vs Hyderabad Urban Development Authority

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation Vs G.Sayanna, W.200519, Driver/ Shramik

Shakeel Islam Khan, Hyderabad Vs Dist Collector, Hyderabad Dist and Another

The Senior Divisional Manager, Vs L. Bheema