THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO. 730 OF 2006 Date: 13.11.2006 Between: The Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd., rep.,by its Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation Division, Hyderabad. …. Appellant. And Shaik Syed, S/o Shaik Bulla Sahab, Resident of Palakol, W.G.Dist. … Respondent. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO. 730 OF 2006 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) Aggrieved by the order passed in W.P. No. 11786 of 2006 dated 15.06.2006, the present appeal is preferred. The dispute in the writ petition relates to alteration of the date of birth. According to the appellant, when the petitioner was initially appointed as N.M.R, since he did not produce any evidence in support of his date of birth, a medical examination was conducted and pursuant to a medical report, his date of birth was recorded as 01.07.1948. Thereafter, the Corporation invited applications for appointment to the regular post of Helpers, pursuant to which the respondent-petitioner applied and was appointed as a regular helper in the appellant-Corporation. He produced a transfer certificate as proof of his date of birth as 03.02.1949. It is the case of the respondent-petitioner that, based on the transfer certificate, his date of birth was entered in the service records as 03.02.1949 and that he was treated accordingly eversince. It is also stated that the appellant-Corporation had issued proceedings dated 23.03.2006, whereby employees were given one year’s notice calling upon them to submit their proposals for retiral benefits. In the proceedings the date of retirement indicated, in so far as respondent-petitioner is concerned, was 25.02.2007. Thereafter the appellant issued an errata on 29.05.2006 wherein it was stated that, basing on the medical certificate issued by the doctor on 24.05.1971, the appellant was to retire on 30.06.2006. Questioning these proceedings dated 29.05.2006, the respondent-petitioner filed W.P. No. 11786 of 2006. The learned single judge held that the impugned proceedings were passed without giving notice and without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, even assuming that the date of birth submitted by the petitioner was wrong, a duty was cast on the appellant- Corporation to issue notice and conduct an enquiry as to the correct date of birth of the petitioner, before passing final orders communicating the date of the retirement based on the altered date of birth. The learned single judge held that, since the Corporation had passed the impugned order without giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner of being heard and without conducting an enquiry, the impugned proceedings were liable to be set aside on the ground that it suffered from violation of principles of natural justice. While setting aside the impugned order, dated 29.05.2006 and 30.05.2006, the learned single judge held that the order did not preclude the appellant-Corporation from taking appropriate action against the petitioner, after issuing notice and conducting an enquiry. In so far as the direction of the learned single judge, calling upon the appellant-Corporation to put the respondent-writ petitioner on notice and to conduct an enquiry with regards his date of birth is concerned, we see no reason to interfere. The only question which remains for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the respondent-petitioner is entitled to be continued in service pending such enquiry. Sri K. Chidambaram, learned Counsel for the respondent-petitioner, would contend that the medical examination was conducted and the petitioner was recruited as an N.M.R. eight years prior to his appointment as a regular helper. Learned Counsel would submit that since prima facie the transfer certificate produced at the time of recruitment as a Helper showed his date of birth as 03.02.1949, pending enquiry the respondent-petitioner was entitled to be continued in service. We are afraid we cannot agree. It is well settled that this Court would not, normally, interfere in matters related to correction of date of birth and would not, as an interim measure, direct such an employee’s continuance in service. The fact that the respondent- petitioner did not produce the transfer certificate when he was initially appointed as N.M.R. and therefore a medical examination was conducted pursuant to which the date of birth was recorded as 01.07.1948 is not in dispute. The only contention urged before us is that, since the respondent-petitioner was thereafter recruited as a helper and had produced the transfer certificate, based on which his date of birth was entered into the service records as 03.02.1949, the earlier date of birth recorded on the basis of the medical examination is required to be discarded. We are of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if the appellant-Corporation is directed to conduct an enquiry, and pass appropriate orders pursuant thereto, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, giving adequate opportunity to the respondent-petitioner of being heard. In case the transfer certificate produced by the petitioner, wherein his date of birth is shown as 03.02.1949, is found to be genuine, the respondent-petitioner will be entitled for salary and all other benefits which he would have been entitled to if he had been permitted to continue in service, based on the said transfer certificate till 28.02.2007 which, according to the respondent- petitioner, is the date on which he would retire on reaching the prescribed age of superanuation. The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J Date: 13-11-2006 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J MRKR