Telangana High Court
WA/1766/2008 of The Vice-Chairman AND Managing Director Vs G. Sambaiah on 29 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1766 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICEand THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT APPEAL NO : 1766 of 2008
(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Orderdated 13/08/2008 in WP NO : 20979 OF 2002 on the file of the HighCourt.)
Between:
1 The Vice-Chairman & Managing Director APSRTC.
Mushirabad, Hyderabad.2 The Depot Manager APSRTC. Warangal II Depot, Warangal.
.....
APPELLANT(S)
AND
G. Sambaiah S/o. Laxmaiah Warangal II Depot, Warangal.
.....RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant:SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.HARI SREEDHAR
The Court made the following :
JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ)
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.
1. Being aggrieved by an order dated 13-8-2008 passed inW.P.No. 20979 of 2002, this appeal has been filed by the appellants-original respondents.
2. The issue, which was involved in the petition, which had beenfiled by the respondent-workman, was with regard to his date of birth. Case of the workman was that his date of birth is 10-10-1965 and not20-8-1950. By virtue of the impugned order passed by the learnedsingle Judge, it has been directed that appellant No.1-originalrespondent No.1 should reconsider the claim of the respondent on thebasis of the entire material which is available on record and pass anappropriate order in accordance with law within one month from thedate of receipt of a copy of the order.
3. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants has submittedthat the issue with regard to the date of birth of the respondent-workman had been considered and a decision had already beentaken. In the circumstances, it was not just and proper on the part ofthe learned single Judge to give such a direction again. It has beentherefore, submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for theappellants that the said direction deserves to be quashed and setaside.
4. We have heard the learned Advocates and have also perused the original record, which had been produced by the learned Advocatefor the appellants.
5. The undisputed fact is that at the time when the respondent-workman had joined the service, he had produced a certificate issuedby the Head Master of Pragathi Primary and High School,Hanamkonda showing that the date of birth of the respondent is 10-10-1965. It is also pertinent to note that the said certificate had beenverified at a later point of time by an officer of the appellants and it wasfound that the said certificate was genuine.
6. Somehow the aforestated certificate was not considered for thepurpose of recording the date of birth of the respondent and when therespondent was referred to the Medical Board for the purpose ofexamining his physical fitness, the concerned Doctor had estimatedthe age of the respondent to be 35 years as on 20-8-1985 and as such the date of birth of the respondent was enteredinto his service record as 20-8-1950.
7. It is also pertinent to note in this case that the respondent-workman had not adduced any further evidence at the time when hewas on the verge of his retirement but he wanted his original certificateto be looked into so as to establish that his correct date of birth is 10-10-1965 and not 20-8-1950 as estimated by a Doctor when hisphysical fitness was examined.
8. In our opinion, the certificate which had been produced by therespondent at the time when he had approached the appellateauthority along with his application for job was not properly looked intoin spite of an admitted fact that the certificate produced by therespondent was found to be genuine by an officer of the appellants.The appellants have considered the date of birth of the respondent as20-8-1950 and accordingly the respondent-workman has been made to retire.
9. In the aforestated circumstances, if the learned single Judgehas given a direction to consider the entire record and to decidewhether the decision arrived at by the appellants with regard to thedate of birth of the respondent is correct.
10. In the aforestated circumstances, we do not desire to interferewith the said direction given by the learned single Judge. We maysimply add that if necessary, the respondent may also be referred to aMedical Board so as to ascertain whether the earlier estimate of aDoctor who had examined the physical fitness of the respondent wascorrect.
11. We are sure that the appellants-authorities shall do theneedful as directed by the learned single Judge as soon as possibleso that if the date of birth of the respondent is in fact 10-10-1965, hemay not be deprived of his job and in that event he shall get anopportunity to serve the appellants for some more time.
12. In the aforestated circumstances, the appeal standsdismissed with no order as to costs.
13. Learned Advocate for the appellants has fairly submitted thatsome more time be granted for taking final decision in pursuance of thedirection given by the learned single Judge.
14. It is directed that the final decision shall be taken on or before13-2-2009.
________________________
ANIL R. DAVE, CJ
29[th] December, 2008.
GRR
___________________________
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J