IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23878 of 2007 Between: Shaik Mastan (S.K Msatan), S/o.Moula Saheb, A.P.Trasco,R/o.Yeddanapudi,(V) &(M), Prakasam Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 S.P.D.C.Of A.P.Ltd, rep.by its Chairmana & Managing Director, Renigunta Road Tirupathi,Chittoor Dist 2 S.P.D.C.of A.P.Ltd, rep.by its Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation, Chirala,Prakasam Dist .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to call for the records from the respondents and issue an appropriate writ, order direction,particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action 2nd respondent having altered the dt.of birth as 15-5-1954, issuing notice of retirement in Memo No. DEE/O/CRL/JAO/ADM/02/D.No.2016/0, Dt.30-7-2007,proposing to retire the petitioner from service on 31-5-2008 as illegal, unjust,contrary to law, arbitrary,discriminatory and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23878 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner assails the Memo, dated 30.07.2007, issued by the 2nd respondent, through which it was formed that the petitioner would retire from service with effect from 31.05.2008. The petitioner states that he joined the service of erstwhile A.P.S.E.B. as N.M.R. in June 1973 and that his services were regularized as Helper with effect from 01.08.1977. According to him, his date of birth was entered in the service records as ‘15.05.1954’, on the basis of the entries in the school records; and when a different date was mentioned subsequently, he made a representation, dated 09.09.1988 to the 2nd respondent, duly enclosing the relevant certificates. He contends that though the enquiry undertaken by the 2nd respondent revealed that his date of birth is 15.05.1954, the impugned order was passed, without any reference to the same. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, disputing the claim of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner was engaged as a Causal Labourer in the year 1968 itself and subsequently as N.M.R. in the year 1973. It is stated that the petitioner himself mentioned his date of birth as 15.05.1950 at the time of his joining the service, and at a subsequent stage, he came forward with a different version. It is also pleaded that the claim made by the petitioner, at the fag end of service, cannot be entertained at all. Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of joining the service, the petitioner had informed the respondents that his date of birth is 15.05.1954 and in several records, the said date was mentioned. He contends that it is only at a later stage, that the suspicion was expressed and thereupon, the petitioner came forward with a representation, with supporting material. He also submits that once the 2nd respondent received confirmation from the school authorities as well as the D.E.O., about the correctness of date of birth as 15.05.1954, necessary relief ought to have been extended to the petitioner. Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the very fact that the petitioner was engaged as a casual labour in the year 1968 discloses that as on that date, he was at least 18 years old, and if the present claim of the petitioner is accepted, it would emerge that the petitioner was aged 14 years at that time. He contends that the Transfer Certificate relied upon by the petitioner cannot be acted upon, on account of the various discrepancies noticed in it. The petitioner states that he joined the service of erstwhile A.P. Electricity Board in the year 1973. However, the respondents pleaded that according to the records, the petitioner was engaged in a different capacity, in the year 1968 itself. The general presumption is that only persons, above 18 years, are engaged as workmen by the Government Agencies. From that point of view, the claim of the petitioner, that his date of birth is 15.05.1954 becomes somewhat untenable. The petitioner had enclosed a copy of “Service Rolls”, wherein, his date of birth is shown as 15.05.1954. A comparison of the same with the one produced by the respondents discloses that there is a major discrepancy. In the one produced by the respondents, the date of birth is mentioned as 15.05.50 and the words “Fifteenth May Fifty” are written in brackets. However, in the copy filed by the petitioner, the figure “0” in “50” was altered to “4” and the word ‘four’ was written outside the brackets. Another piece of evidence relied upon by the petitioner is the Transfer Certificate said to have been issued by the Zilla Parishad High School, Thotlavalluru, Krishna District. The petitioner is said to have joined the institution on 23.06.1967 and left it within 6 days i.e., on 29.06.1967, as is evident from the entries made against columns ‘10’ and ‘16’ respectively. It would be difficult to believe that a student has studied in an institution just for six days. Secondly, in the certificate, the word “ORIGINAL “ in print was struck off and the word ‘DUPLICATE’ was written with pen. It is a matter of common knowledge that the transfer certificates are maintained in the institutions in original, duplicate, triplicate and in some cases, quadruplicate, and the entries in all of them are bound to be one and the same. In the vent of loss of original, the duplicate is given, which would reflect the same entries. In the instant case, the original transfer certificate is said to have been given to the petitioner in the year 1973, whereas the duplicate is issued on an application made in the year 1997. It does not accord with the settled practice. In several cases, the Supreme Court held that the date of birth noted at the time of entry into service would be binding on the employer and employee and the application filed for alteration of the same at the fag end of the service cannot be entertained at all. Even assuming that the petitioner had begun his efforts much in advance, this Court is of the view that the record does not support his claim. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the impugned Memo. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 24.04.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23878 of 2007 Date: 24.04.2008 JSU