Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 990 (AP)

A. P. Transco, Hyd. v. Y. Nagaiah

2002-08-12

DUBAGUNTA SUBRAHMANYAM, S.R.NAYAK

body2002
J U D G M E N T (per the Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.R. Nayak) The A. P. Transmission Corporation (for short ‘TRANSCO’) and its Managing Director, (P & HRD) being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.11.2001 made in W.P.No. 16654 of 2001 have preferred this Writ Appeal. The respondent herein Sri Y. Nagaiah filed the above writ petition seeking quashing of the Memo No. GM (P)/DS(P)/AS(P)/P03/488- A1/2001 dated 26-7-2001 issued by the Ist appellant herein and for a consequential direction to the appellants to alter his date of birth as 1-7-1945 instead of 1-7-1943 in the Service Register in the light of the proceedings of the Director of School Education dated 29-6-2001. The learned Single Judge by the order under appeal directed the appellants herein to reinstate the writ petitioner into service and continue him in service till the date of his superannuation as per the altered date of birth. Hence this Writ Appeal by the aggrieved TRANSCO. This Court while admitting the Writ appeal on 28.1.2001, in W.A.M.P. No. 3828 of 2001 suspended the order of the learned Single Judge and as a result the writ petitioner is not reinstated into service as directed by the learned Single Judge and that the interim order granted by the Division Bench has been in operation till date. The back-ground facts leading to the filing of the writ petition may briefly be noted as follows: The Writ petitioner joined in to the service of the erstwhile A. P. State Electricity Board, the predecessor legal entity of A.P. TRANSCO. as Assistant Engineer with effect from 2.6.1972. The writ petitioner at the time of joining the service, in proof of his date of birth produced the S.S.L.C. Certificate showing his date of birth as 1-7-1943 and accordingly, the authorities of the erstwhile A. P. State Electricity Board entered his date of birth as 1-7-1943 in the service register of the petitioner. According to the writ petitioner on coming to know that his actual date of birth is 1-7-1945. he made a representation on 17-3-1993 to the A.P. Electricity Board enclosing documents in support of his claim. Since there was delay in considering his representation, the petitioner made another representation on 13.12.1999. According to the writ petitioner on coming to know that his actual date of birth is 1-7-1945. he made a representation on 17-3-1993 to the A.P. Electricity Board enclosing documents in support of his claim. Since there was delay in considering his representation, the petitioner made another representation on 13.12.1999. As still there was delay on the part of the TRASNCO, in considering his representations, under those circumstances, the writ petitioner filed W.P. No. 8248 of 2001 in this Court, and this Court by an order dated 14.6.2001 dismissed the said writ petition on merit. Thereafter, the Director of School Education on an application made by the writ petitioner for correction of his date of birth, passed an order on 29.6.2001 correcting the date of birth of the writ petitioner as 1.7.1945. Armed with the said Certificate, the petitioner made one more representation and since there was delay in disposal of that representation, the petitioner again filed W.P. No. 1372 of 2001, and this Court disposed of that writ petition directing the TRANSCO, the Ist appellant herein to consider and dispose of the representation of the writ petitioner in the light of the order of the Director of School Education dated 29.6.2001. As directed by this Court, the TRANSCO considered the representation of the writ petitioner for change of date of birth and rejected his claim by its order dated 26.7.2001. Questioning the said proceedings of the TRANSCO, W.P.No. 16654 of 2001 was filed. The learned Single Judge having noticed the provisions of Regulation 10 (2) (e) of the A.P State Electricity Board Regulations, Part-1, as amended by B.P. (P&G. Per.) Ms. No.279 dated 31.10.1994, has opinioned that the wit petitioner’s case falls within the category mentioned under Regulation 10 (2) (e) of the Regulations, and therefore, the TRANSCO was not justified in rejecting the representation of the petitioner for change of date of birth. The learned Single Judge so holding allowed the writ petition and directed the TRANSCO to reinstate the petitioner into service and to continue him in service till the date of superannuaion as per the altered date of birth. We have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the TRANSCO and Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. The learned Single Judge so holding allowed the writ petition and directed the TRANSCO to reinstate the petitioner into service and to continue him in service till the date of superannuaion as per the altered date of birth. We have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the TRANSCO and Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. The learned Standing Counsel for the TRANSCO contended that the date of birth of the writ petitioner was shown in the Service Register as 1-7-1943 on the basis of the evidence and proof produced by the writ petitioner himself, and in that view of the matter, it is totally impermissible for such an officer to seek alteration of date of birth and that too at the fag end of his service and that the Court cannot direct the management of the TRNSCO to alter the date of birth of the writ petitioner from 1-7-1943 to 1-7-1945 and to continue him in service till he attains the age of superannuation taking his date of birth as 1.7.1945, particularly in the light of a catena of binding decisions of the Supreme Court. Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in M. VIJAYA BHASKARA REDDY vs. HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (1), and drawing our attention to the summary of the opinions contained in para-19 thereof, would maintain that the writ petitioners’ case falls within the summary of the law contained in sub- para-(2) and sub-para(4) of para 19 of the judgment. It is well settled by the judgments of the Supreme Court in DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION vs. K.SITADEVI (2) BURN STANDARD COMPANY LIMITED vs. DINA BANDHU MAJUMDAR (3) VISAKHAPATNAM DOCK LABOUR BOARD vs. E. ATCHANNA(4) UNION OF INDIA vs. HARNAM SINGH (5), UNION OF INDIA vs. C. RAMA SWAMY (6), UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS vs. (MRs.) SAROJ BALA(7), that even if there is no period of limitation prescribed for seeking correction of date of birth, the Government servant must do so without any unreasonable delay and if a Government servant approaches the employer at a belated stage or at the fag end of the service, the general principle of refusing relief on grounds of laches or stale claims should generally be applied by the Courts and the Tribunals. It is also well settled that if declaration of date of birth made by an employee is the basis for entry of his date of birth in Service Register, such employee has no right to get it corrected. Particularly in this case, since the writ petitioner joined the service as Assistant Engineer after his Graduation in Engineering as far back as in the year 1972 and having produced the S.S.L.C. Certificate in proof of his date of birth, it is highly incredible that such an educated man could not know his actual date of birth and could notice defect in his date of birth after more than two decades from joining the service. Secondly, it needs to be mentioned here that the Director of School Education passed the order on 29.6.2001 altering the date of birth of the writ petitioner to 1-7-1945, that is to say, one day before his retirement from service. The petitioner filed all writ petitions in this Court after his retirement. Looking from that angle also, there was no justification for this Court to issue Mandamus to the management of the TRANSCO to correct his date of birth and to permit him to continue in service till he attains the age of superannuation, taking his actual date of birth as 1.7.1945. Thirdly, the claim of the petitioner for alteration of his date of birth to 1.7.1945 was not a subject of any adjudication either before a Civil Court or any other adjudicatory forum. In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed, and the order of the learned Single Judge is set-aside and the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. --X--