Telangana High Court
WA/1172/2010 of Perla Danayya Vs Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited on 31 December 2010
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU and THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated: 31-12-2010 WRIT APPEAL No. 1172 OF 2010 Between: Perla Danayya ... APPELLANT AND Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited ( A Government of India Undertaking) rep., by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRUand THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
Dated: 31-12-2010
WRIT APPEAL No. 1172 OF 2010
Between:
Perla Danayya
AND
... APPELLANT
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (A Government of India Undertaking)rep., by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Visakahapatnam SteelPlant, Visakhapatnam and two others …RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRUandTHE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT APPEAL No. 1172 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru)
Upon own showing of the appellant, his age as on 25-12-1982 which is the date of his entry into service, was 32 yearsand the statement regarding age was supported by a certificate of aMedical Officer. No doubt the respondents too at that point of time hadgot him examined and the certificate obtained revealed that his ageappears to be 28 years and by appearance also. Apparently, thecertificate was not definite about his age, whereas the certificateproduced by the appellant himself depicts specific declaration by theMedical Officer certifying his age as 32 years. Perhaps in thatbackdrop, the respondents chose to rely on the certificate furnished bythe appellant against which he should not register any grievancebecause it forms the basis of the order upon which his appointment isfounded. Reckoned on the certificate produced by the petitioner he isscheduled to retire today. Apart from that he has approached the Courtjust five/six months back, apparently at the fag end of his service. Interference is uncalled for. Dismissed.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ
31-12-2010K. Shyleshi