S.Ganga Rao, v. A.P.State Road Transport Corporation,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT W.P. No.2376 0F 2009 ORDER:

The petitioner challenges letter No.P1/255(1)/08-KKD of the respondent. The impugned letter reads as follows:

"A.P.S.R.T.C. Office of the Depot Manager, No.P1/255(1)08-KKD KAKINADA:: DATE.12.11.2008 To Sri S.Ganga Rao, E.63817, Mechanic, APSRTC: KAKINADA.

Sub: ESTABLISHMENT-Alteration of Date of Birth entered in Service Records of Sri S.Ganga Rao, E.63817, Mechanic of Kakinada Depot-Reg.

Ref: 1. Your representation dt.14.10.08 & 11.11.08. 2.Circular No.PD-27/1990,Dt.13.02.1990 of the CM(P)/HYD.

*** In terms of the circular instructions contained vide reference 2nd cited, the Date of Birth entered in Service Records of the employees should not be altered and hence, the representation submitted by you regarding alteration of date of birth need not be entertained.

Sd/- Depot Manager APSRTC, Kakinada"

The case of the petitioner is that on 21.05.1976, the petitioner joined APSRTC. The petitioner was appointed by the Corporation as a displaced employee on account of nationalisation of a route. According to petitioner, his date of birth is 21.07.1956 whereas the authorities have erroneously and without any material, entered the date of birth of petitioner as 21.05.1952. The petitioner, it is averred, made a representation in 1979 followed by a series of reminders dated 17.10.1988, 29.10.1990, 08.02.1991, 09.09.1991 and 28.09.1999 for rectification of date of birth as 21.07.1956. The complaint of petitioner is that at the earliest point of time, the erroneous entry of date of birth of petitioner was brought to the notice of respondent-corporation and the failure to make suitable corrections and not deciding the representations cannot be put against the petitioner. The petitioner relies upon the study/transfer certificate dated 22.08.1974 issued by the Head Master, Sri Ramareddy Parishad High School, Anaparthi.

Learned counsel Mr.Razzaq places strong reliance upon the decisions in Cidco v. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar[1] and Bharat Cooking Coal Limited v. Chhota Birsa Uranw [2] and contends that the date of birth of petitioner shall be accepted as 21.07.

1956 and accordingly appropriate orders are passed for continuation of service, Learned counsel appearing for the respondent contends that at the time of appointment of petitioner in corporation, as a displaced employee of a nationalised route/service, the petitioner was not in a position to place the date of birth certificate issued by the Municipality or local authority and consequently the respondent corporation was not prepared to accept the transfer certificate produced by the petitioner for the purpose of entry into service record the date of birth, but subjected petitioner to medical examination. In the medical examination, the date of birth of petitioner was determined as 21.05.1952. Accordingly, the determined date was entered in service record.

According to circulars, once a date of birth is entered in the service record, the same cannot be reopened or changed on the representation filed by an employee. It is alternatively contended that in the case on hand, there is hardly any material on which any presumption can be drawn by this Court to accept the contention of the petitioner that his date of birth is 21.07.1956. Learned counsel relies upon unreported decision of this Court dated 30.07.2015 in W.P.No.4894 of 2002.

I have taken note of the submissions and material available on record. Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for consideration of his date of birth as 21.07.1956 or not? The petitioner relies upon the transfer certificate issued by Head Master, Sri Ramareddy Parishad High School, Anaparthi. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not and could not produce the birth certificate issued by

the competent authority under the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1953. According to petitioner, there is no basis for entry of his death of birth as 21.05.1952. On the other hand, learned standing counsel contends that the petitioner having accepted the date of birth as 21.05.1952 is employed in the corporation. Petitioner wants his date of birth to be corrected from 21.05.1952 to 21.07.1956. According to learned standing counsel, there is hardly any material on which this Court can consider pleas of petitioner. The petitioner admittedly relies upon the transfer certificate. There is no presumption or for the limited extent of noting the date of birth of petitioner any presumption can be attached by this Court.

The petitioner as it appears from the sequence of dates has accepted as 1952 and he was appointed in the corporation when he was 24 years old. If the date of birth is accepted as 21.07.1956, the petitioner was aged 20 years and it would not be clear how long the petitioner worked in a Bus nationalised by the corporation. I have no difficulty in presuming that petitioner while securing appointment in corporation as a displaced employee in a nationalised route, accepted his date of birth as 21.05.1952 as it would be in conformity with other assertions of petitioner for appointment as a displaced person. The circulars provide that once date of birth upon medical examination is determined, the corporation cannot as a matter of course alter the date of birth already entered in the service record.

There is no material on which this Court can accept the contention of the petitioner that his date of birth is 21.07.1956. I do not see illegality or irregularity in the letter impugned in the writ petition. It is well settled that belated representations for correction of date of birth without conclusive proof ought not to be entertained by the management. For the above reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, s hall stand closed. _____ S.V.BHATT, J Date:15.02.