*THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 13067 OF 2008 % 26-06-2008 # Iqbal Hussain. …Petitioner And $ Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited and another. …Respondents ! COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao ^COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: Standing Counsel < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 13067 of 2008 Between: Iqbal Hussain, S/o. Mohd. Rahmat Hussain, R/o. 8-3-231/C/178/1, Sri Krishna Nagar, near yousufguda Police Lines, Hyderabad-45. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Central Power Distribution Company of A.P.Limited, rep by its Chief General Manager (HRD), Red Hills, Hyderabad-4. 2 Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, rep by its Superintending Engineer, Operation/West Circle (RR-North), Gunrock, Secunderabad-15. .....RESPONDENTS 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 call for the records from the 2nd respondent and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the Order passed by the 2nd respondent in Memo No.SE/OP/WC(RR- N)/GH/ADM/A2/F.37/D.NO.527/08, dated 19-04-2008, proposing to retirement the petitioner from service with effect from 30.06.2008, as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and grant all consequential benefits; Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY (SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner joined the service of erstwhile A.P. Electricity Board as an Attender on 08.12.1970. He studied VIII Class and produced a Transfer Certificate in support of his educational qualifications. The Transfer Certificate contained the date of birth of the petitioner as 15.03.1952. The same was entered in his service register. The petitioner was also subjected to medical examination and it appears that the Medical Officer opined that the age of the petitioner as on the date of entry into service is 20 years. The petitioner came to know in the year 1986 that his age was mentioned as 20 years in the service register. Immediately, he made a representation, dated 18.12.1986, with a request that the date of birth mentioned in Transfer Certificate be treated as final. There was no response. He is sought to be retired from service with effect from 30.06.2008, on the ground that he attains the age of superannuation. The action of the respondents is challenged in this writ petition. Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that on the date of entry into service itself, the date of birth of the petitioner in the service register was mentioned as 15.03.1952 and that subsequently, the approximate age according to medical opinion was mentioned, without any specific date. He contends that the petitioner earned number of promotions in his career and at every stage, his date of birth was mentioned as 15.03.1952. Learned Counsel submits that there is no justification for the respondents in proposing to retire the petitioner on 30.06.2008. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that though the petitioner produced his Transfer Certificate at the time of joining the service, he was subjected to medical examination, on the ground that he did not hold the requisite qualifications. Placing reliance on certain Regulations, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner was under obligation to take steps for correction of date of birth, within one month from the date of entry into service. The only controversy, in this writ petition, is about the date of birth of the petitioner, with reference to his service. The petitioner states that his date of birth is 15.03.1952 as evident from the Transfer Certificate and that the same is mentioned not only in the service register, but also in the orders of promotion issued by the respondents from time to time. Since the entries in the service record of the petitioner assume relevance, this Court directed the learned Standing Counsel to produce the same, and accordingly, the entire record is produced. A perusal of the record discloses that on the date of entry into service itself, the petitioner produced his Transfer Certificate, which discloses that he studied VIII Class. The Transfer Certificate indicates that the date of birth of the petitioner is 15.03.1952. In column “4” of the service register, the date of birth was mentioned as 15.03.1952. However, another observation is made to the effect that the age of the petitioner is 20 years as per the certification as on 08.12.1970. The petitioner earned number of promotions during his service for the past 30 years. In every such proceedings, his date of birth was mentioned as 15.03.1952. When a doubt arose as to the date which must be taken into account, the Superintendent Engineer addressed a letter, dated 16.04.2008, calling clarification as to whether the date of birth mentioned in the Transfer Certificate, or the one according to the medical certificate, both of which are mentioned in the service register, must be taken into account. Way back in the year 1986, the petitioner brought the anomaly to the notice of the respondents and nothing was forthcoming. It is true that according to the Service Regulations of the respondents, any application for correction of date of birth in the service record must be made within one month from the date of entry into service. In the instant case, on the date of entry into service itself, the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 15.03.1952. The whole confusion arose, on account of the fact that the approximate age according to the observation of the Doctor was also mentioned. The necessity to get examined a person to assess the age arises, only when there is no proof of his date of birth. When the respondents themselves were satisfied that there exist the proof of date of birth of the petitioner and have entered the same in the Service Register, the examination by the Doctor to assess the age of the petitioner was superfluous and unnecessary. The lack of clarity and inconsistency on the part of the respondents is evident from the fact that approximate date as per the observation of the Doctor was 06.12.1950, whereas he is sought to be retired with effect from 30.06.2008. This Court is of the view that the date of birth of the petitioner was accepted by the respondents at the commencement of service itself as 15.03.1952, and as such, he is entitled to remain in service till he attains the age of 58 years, on the basis of that age. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:26.06.2008. Note: Issue C.C. forthwith. L.R.copy to be marked. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}