The premature retirement order based on an alleged age dispute at the fag end of the petitioner's service was a clear violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the law.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed seeking for writ of Mandamus to declare the Office Order No.P1/255(10)/2011-Medak dated 17.02.2016 issued by respondent No.2 retiring the petitioner from service prematurely with retrospective effect from 30.11.2015, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice.

2. Heard Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.Srinivas Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a driver in respondent Corporation vide office order No.P3/502(3)/87-SRD dated 06.04.1988, issued by the Divisional Manager, Medak District at Sanga Reddy, and subsequently his services were regularized. At the time of appointment, the petitioner produced bonafide certificate issued by the ZPHS, Nagasanpally, wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 15.04.1959. The respondent Corporation accepted the said date of birth and the same was recorded in the appointment order and also in the service record and the petitioner is supposed to be retired from service on 30.04.2017.

3.1. He further submits that when the petitioner performing duties at Dubbak Depot, the Depot Manager, Dubbaka Depot, issued letter dated 16.11.2004 directing the petitioner to submit Birth Certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) or school certificate. Pursuant to the same, he produced the bonafide certificate issued by the ZPHS, Nagasanpally, dated 18.11.2004, wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 15.04.1959. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to Medak Depot. On 16.04.2011, respondent No.2 again issued another letter directing the petitioner to submit school certificate to show his date of birth as 15.04.1959. Pursuant to the same, petitioner obtained the date of birth certificate from ZPHS, Nagasanpally and produced the same. Even after furnishing the date of birth certificate twice, once again respondent No.2 directed the petitioner to submit fresh certificate from School. The petitioner once again obtained bonafide certificate from ZPHS, Nagasanpally on 18.01.2016 and the same was submitted to respondent No.2 along with detailed representation on 22.01.2016. The respondent Corporation, without considering the same and without issuing any notice, opportunity to the petitioner, retired him from services through impugned order dated 17.02.2016 prematurely on the alleged ground that in the medical certificate dated 20.11.1987 issued by the Medical Officer, APSRTC, Tarnaka Hospital, the age of the petitioner was mentioned as 30 years as on 20.11.1987 and basing on the said certificate the petitioner deemed to have been retired from service from the respondent Corporation with effect from 30.11.2015 on attaining the age of superannuation as per the TSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations 1964 (hereinafter called, ‘Regulations’ for brevity).

3.2. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded in the appointment order dated 06.04.1988 as well as in the service records as 15.04.1959. Further, the petitioner submitted bonafide certificate issued by the ZPHS, Nagasanpally, on various occasions and also date of birth certificate issued by the Sarpanch, Nagasanpally Gram Panchayat, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 15.04.1959. Hence, the respondent Corporation is not entitled to retire the petitioner from service prematurely basing upon medical certificate dated 20.11.1987 issued by the Medical Officer, especially raising such age dispute after rendering more than 28 years of service and at the fag end of the service. He further contended that the Medical Officer issued medical certificate for limited purpose determining the medical fitness of the petitioner that whether he is entitled to hold the post of driver or not. Basing on the said certificate, the respondent Corporation is not entitled to pass i