Dismissed

P. Raja Vikram Reddy , P.R. Vikram Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Feb 2022WP/5852/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ petition seeking correction of the petitioner's date of birth from 1962 to 1963 in service records filed four months prior to retirement, citing Supreme Court precedents that such belated claims at the fag end of service career are unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition seeking correction of date of birth was dismissed; subsequent miscellaneous petitions were closed.

P. Raja Vikram Reddy , P.R. Vikram Reddy… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 5852 OF 2020

¶8

Betwee n:

¶9

P. Raja Vikram Reddy @ P.R. Vikram Reddy, Sio P. Veera Reddy, aged about 57 years Occ. Special Grade Deputy Collector R/o Plot No. 74, Flat No. 201, Divya Sai Nilayam Kalyan Nagar, Phase-3 lt4othinagar, Hyderabad-O18.

¶10

..PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Director, School Education Department Government of Telangana, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶14

3 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary School Education Department.

¶15

4 The Director, School Education Department Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada.

¶16

The Board of Secondary Education, rep by its Secretary Government of Telangana, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶17

6 The Board of Secondary Education, rep by its Secretary Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitutton of lndia^praylng that^{in the} circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court^{may be} pleased to issue writ order or direclion more particularly one in the nature of writ of lt4andamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the representation of the petitioner duly correcting his date of birth as^{13-1 1-} 1963 instead of 12-08-1962 in the SSC Certificate and Service register as illegal, arbitrary, un.just, unreasonable and discriminatory and contrary to Art. 14 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to alter the^dateof birth of the petitioner as 13-11-1963 instead of 12-08-1962 in the SSC certificate and Service register of the^petitioner and continue the^petitioner in service till^his

¶20

attains the a)e of superannuation by reckoning the 13-11-1963 as the date of birth of the^)etitioner with all consequential benefits and also to declare the Proc.RC.1 131 895fi812020 dated O5-OB-2020 issued by lhe 4th Respondent as illegal, arbitre^ry, unjust, unreasonable and u nconst itutio na I and contrary to Rules and set aside the same.

¶21

(Prayer is am :nded as per Court Order dated 31-8-2020 in l.A.No.3/2020)

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2 )20

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fi ed in support of the petitjon, the High Court may be pleased to direct the resF ondents to continue the petitioner in service by reckoning the date of birth of the^petrtioner as 13-1 1-1963 in the interest of^justice duly considering the representa ions of the^petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶24

lA NO: 2 OF 2t 20

¶25

Petition rnder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fil rd in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to delete the Res rondent No. 5 i.e. The Board of Secondary Education, Rep. by its Secretary, Gov rrnment of Telangana, Hyderabad from the list of Respondents in the interest or^j rstice.

¶26

Counsel for thr Petitioner : SRI.D.RAMAKRISHNA

¶27

Counsel forthr Respondent No.1 : GP FOR SERVICES

¶28

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.2 & 5: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3, 4 & 6 : SRI.P.GOVIND REDDY, SPL. cP FoR A.P

¶30

The Court madr the following ORDER

¶31

THD HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA S}IARMA AND

¶32

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶33

WRIT PETITION No.5852 OF 2020

¶34

ORDER: Per th.e Hon'ble the Chiel Justice Satish Chandra Shaftn(.)

¶35

The petitioner before this Court has filed the present writ petition at the fag end of his service only when four months are left for his retirement seeking correction of date of birth from 12.08. 1962 to 13.11.1963.

¶36

The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Deput)' Tahsildar on 19.03.199 I and thc date of birth in the servicc record u'as recorded as 12.08.1962. Hc signed the service book with open eyes. However, as per the contention of the petitioner, he submitted some application for correction of date of birth on 27.05.1991 and thereafter, he has approached this Court just at the fag end of his retirement i.e., in the year 2O2O. Meaning thereby, after 30 years praying for correction of date of birth. Now he is a retired employee also. The petitioner prays for the following relief:

¶37

"For the reasons stated in the companying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the representation of the petitioner duly correcting his date of birth as l3.l l.1963 instead ol- 12.AA.11)62 in thc SSC certificate atrd set1,ict: register as ill<.ga1, arllitlar-r', un-,usl, unreason;rble and discriminaton' ar.:d contrarv lo Alr. l.+ of rhe Cor]slitution of lndia and consequentll

¶38

)

¶39

dire t the respondents to alter the date of birth of the petitioner as 13.11.1963 instead of 12.08.1962 in the SCC certificate and service regir ter of the petitioner and continue the petitioner in service till he atta^'')s the age of superartnuation bl reckoning rhr: 13.11.1963 as the date of birth of the petitioner rvith all consequentiai benefits and also to declr re the Proc,Rc.No.1 1368951T812020 dared 05.08.2020 issued bv the +th respondent as illegal, arbitrar-,-, ttnjust, unreasonable and unc( nstitutional and contrary to Rules and set aside the same.,

¶40

This Court has carefullr,gone throlrgh the docllments on record. It is a cas^, of an employee, lr,ho is at the lzrg cnd of his service career left u,ith o tly four months is approaching this Courr for correction of date of bir h after more than three decades. Tl-re issue of correction of date of bir:h has been looked into by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case r f Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others vs. Shyam Klshore S nght. Paras 8 to 14 of the aforesaid judgment read as under:

¶41

'8. This Court has consistently held that the request for change of the du te of birth in the service records at the fag end of service is not sustai rable. The learned Additional Solicitor General has in that regard relied rn the decision in the case of State of Mahatashtra and Anr. vs. Gorak rnath Sitaram Kamble & Ors. {2010) 14 SCC 423 wherein a series :f the earlier decisions of this Court rlere laken note and was held a hereu nder:

¶42

"16. The iearnecl cotrnsel lbr thc altpcllant has place(i reiiance on the 1u<lenrcnr ol this Couri rn U.p. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri l(2OOSl SCC 465 ; 2006 SCC (L&S) 961. [n lhis case, rhis Court has considered a number of jLldgments of this Court ancl :bserved that the grievance as to the date oI birth in the service record should not be permittcd at the lag end ol :he service career.

¶43

[7. In another judgment in State of Uttaranchal v. Pitamber Dutt Semwal l(2005) 11 SCC 477 2otl6 SCC L&S) 1061 reliel rvas denied to the governmenr ernployee

¶44

I Civil Appeal No 1009 of2020, dr. 05.02.2020

¶45

¶46

on the ground that ^he sought correction in the service record afrer nearlv 3O.years 6f service. Wf,ifi'""itl.,g u"la" the judgment of ttre High Cor.t, ttl. Corr.l"oi""*ua ,f_,., the Hish court oughinot to^.h;;; i-,i,l.i"iJi.*t,n ,rr. decision after almosf three decades.

¶47

These decisions lead to a different dimension of the case that correction at the fag."a o"ia U" ui1]re cost of a large number of employeesl th.;fr,-;; ;;ection at the fag end must bi ;";";;J-;;li" ""out. t" IlTbitst." relevant portion^I1ee4 of^sllq.(liscc -the judgmeni rss i" ;i";;" :-ise+-ibc o""'p,a.,. fr.sstn. 59, 44e para : (leeal 7) 26 Arc sa8l.r;.d" "";;;.;, iscf pp. rsa

¶48

'7. An application for correction of the date of birth lby a public servant cannot be €ntertui""J .tlfr" fll 1.,a of fri" servicel. It need not be pointed out th.; .;y ";:h"dir""tio, concerned for correction has of a the_ chain .rate reaction, or ui. , oi-Gl i"asmriJ p,liii" als ".o.,,otners waiting. for years,. below hirn' for^-ll;;; lespective promotions are affected in this process. So" "." tit"ty to suffer irreparable injury, i"a"ucf,-.s, t.Iiri. oi tf,e correction of the date of birth, tte offrc.i*lJ.r"...r.a, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers rvho are below t i'i" .."i".jiv *ultire for their promotion, may lose tr-l"l, pro_oiioi' iorr""... ... According to us, rhis is an tmportant!s-p"Ji"*ii""r, "ur,.,o, be lost sight of b.y the "or.t o.-tt.'lritu"ur *r_,rr" examining the grievanc^e of a public s"*u.ri i.,-i."p..t or on correction the basis of his of date materials of birth. s,hich As ""at, ".,t""" can U." fr.la u "l'"u, a au"au. conclusive in nature, is made out Uy tf,. .."poial"nt, tf,. court or the tribunal should not issue a alreJtion, on the basis ol materials rvhich make "r.n .f J_-t"rvliaustUte. Before any such direction is issued, tt,. lluii o. tr,. tribunal must be fully satistred th;t;;;" n""1'U."r, ,.rt injustice to- the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made i.r-"""o.A".r". with the procedure prescribed, u.,o *itf,ii i'f,.-iiL" rir.a by any rule or order. ... the onus i" o" i-rr.'"prii".r, to prove the wrong recording of his aate or Uiittl in nis service book_,

¶49

This Court in fact has also held that even if there is good evidence to establish that the- recorded date of birth- is eioneous, tfre correction cannot be claimed as a mati;; "i ,fgh,.^ I"'th.t regard, in hereunder;state of M.p. ve. premrat surr""",-(2tiri; ijEt d; it is held as

¶50

"8. It needs to be emphasised that in matters involvin, correction of date of birth of u gou".rr*"rri ;;;;;i: particularly on the eve of his superannuation or at the iag

¶51

¶52

end of his career, the court or the tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious and careful \.hile issuing direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the service book at the time of entry into any government service, Unless the court or the tribunal is full-v sarisfied or. the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to his clate ol birth and that such a claim is made in accordancc rlith the procedure prescribed or as per the consistent procedure adopted b_v the department concerned, as the case may be, and a.eal injustice has been caused to the pcrson concerned, the court or the tribunal should be loath to issue a direction for correction of the service book. Time and a€iain this Court has expressed the view that if a governmeni. servant makes a request for correction of thi recorcled date of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond the time lxed bv his empl.oyer, he cannot claim, as a matter of righi, ttre correction of his date of birth, even if he has good Jvidence to establish that the recorded date of birlh is clearly grroneous. No court or the tribunal can come to the aid of lhose who sleep over their rights (see Unlon of Ind.la v. rli111T sllc=h t(1ee3) 2 scc 162 : 1ee3 SCC (L&S) 375 : 1993]' 24 ArC 921 ).

¶53

t2. B€ that as it may, in our opinion, the delay of over two lecades in applying for the coirection of date of bi.th is .* acie fatal to the case of the respondent, notwithstanding he fact that there \,'as no specific rule or order, framed oi rade, prescribing the period within which such . pplication could be filed. It is trite that even in such a r ituation such an application should be fiied ri,hich can be Ield to be reasonable. The application trh:d ltv the r -'spondent 25 years after his induction into ser.',ice, b), no s:andards, can be held to be reasonabl., -o." "c, ,uh.., r ot a feeble attempt was made to explain the said delay. 'l tlere is also no substance in the plea of the respondent t rat since Rule 84 of the M.p. Financial Code d'oes not p^-escribe the time-limit within which an application is to b: filed, the appellants were duty-bound to correct the c -'rical error in recording of his date of birth in the sen ice b rok.'

¶54

T re learned Additional Solicitor General has aiso relied upon the decir.on of this Court in the case of Factory Manager Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. vs. Laxman in SLp (C) Nos. ZS-eZ-ZSee--7 i|018 dated 25.O4.2O 9 wherein the belated claim was not entertained. Further reliance : ; also placed on the decision of this Court in the case of M/s Easterr )oalflelds Ltd. & Ors. vs. FLam Samugh yad.av & Ors. in C.A.No.7' 24 of 2Oll dated 27.0s.2Ot9 wherein th-is Court has held as hereunde :

¶55

"N rthing is on record that in the year 19g7 when the

¶56

oF )ortunity was given to Respondent No.l, to raise any

¶57

¶58

¶59

f{:?iJ,:',{f,:1,..,1i1'"."j[],f-'*"]'T,::..:::..0:o""i"T superannuatron wnly one .".uj".f;. year prior to his tearned rvhich can Singre:?11:: o. J;n l^.T-":9.n, "----]'", ?:^beiared ,,vo.l dispure^'*u 'the^dispute i. * r, "^{i, s I"} "^{::.0p1'=i: il:,j, " ;; ".;;,:;:.'i.,.,f::1; ;i;}

¶60

The Division t ,lt,.;l******lffi

¶61

12.. On the other hanrt i u,,a,as ,iso ii ;il.i.j:il;i ,ll.^:::,", case. as on rhe ,,,o,ii,xj,il.^]irir li,.",l;':U[::;F,l ".::ii!i1"ff:i:l?,1i m**',uffi

¶62

¶63

I t

¶64

Hence, the ord_e_r dated 13.10.2017 passed bv the learned Single Judge i.n WP(S) No.6172 of ZOl4 and the order dated lg.O2.201g passed by the Division Bench in LpA No.115 of 2018 are not sustair lble.

¶65

n the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is a-llowei with no orde-r-as to costs. pending applications if any, shall a.lso stE nd disposed of.'

¶66

The H >n'ble Supreme Court has referred in the aforesaid case the earlier jr ldgments on the subject and has arrived at a concrusion that a reque;t for change of date of birth in service record at the fag end of servic ) career is unsustainable.

¶67

In the ight of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the request mad: at the fag end of the retirement cannol be entertained and therefort, the net result is the writ petition is clismissed.

¶68

Miscell lneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order a t to costs.

SD/.K.SAILESHI

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

CL--

SECTION OFFICER