HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.46581 OF 2022

ORDER:

Heard Sri P.Achyuta Rama Shastry, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Deputy Solicitor General of I ndia appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

“…to issue Writ or Direction more Particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents authorities not following order in WP 3940 of 2010 passed by this Honourable Court and not settled the matter till now confirming the age do the Petitioner as 60 years as on 29/10/2009 and terminating him on dated 31/10/2009 and terminating his service on 1/11/2009 without declaring the correct age as directed by this Honourable court and giving false replies in RTI Letters dated 15/7/2020 and 21/7/2020 as arbitrary violation of principles of natural Justice and violative of Art 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of India set aside the same and direct the Respondent authorities to grant benefits such as gratuity pension provident fund etc along with interest till now from the date of superannuation and pass…”

3. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present Writ Petition is as under:-

The petitioner was appointed as Badh Worker on

13.03.1978 in 2^nd respondent corporation. The petitioner’s age at the time of appointment was assessed as 22 years and on 14.07.1998 an identity card was issued to the petitioner by the 2^nd respondent mentioning the age of the petitioner as 33 years on that date. However, the office records of the 2^nd respondent were destroyed due to fire accident and in 2004 the 2^nd respondent erroneously entered the petitioner’s age at the time appointment as 33 years, in the service register and the petitioner made several representations to the respondents to rectify the age of the petitioner in the service register as per the identity card issued to the petitioner by the 2^nd respondent in

1998.

It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was to be superannuated on 31.10.2016 as per the correct date of birth however the petitioner was superannuated on 01.10.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner earlier filed W.P.No. 16650 of 2009 and the same was disposed of directing the respondents to constitute the Apex Medical Board for determination of the age, however the respondents constituted the Board without informing the petitioner and determined the age of the petitioner as 60 years vide order dated 30.10.2009. thereafter, the petitioner challenged the order dated 30.10.2009 in W.P.No. 3940 of 2010 and the same was disposed of with clear instructions to determine the age of the petitioner, however the respondents didn’t follow the said instructions. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD.

A. The relevant portion of the order, dated 03.04.2018 passed in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.3940 of 2010 filed by the petitioner on earlier occasion is extracted hereunder:-

B) i) Petitioner is occupying quarter allotted to him when he was in service. Ordinarily a person has to vacate the quarter on retirement from service. Even assuming petitioner has valid claim regarding the wrong assessment of age, he could not have continued occupying the quarter without the consent of the employer. At any rate, even according to petitioner his age of retirement was in October, 2016, thus, after October, 2016 without consent of the employer, he could not have continued in the quarter. However, in the case on hand the respondent company has not settled his retirement benefits till date. No justification is shown by the respondent company except harping that he has not vacated the quarter. No steps were taken to evict him also. Learned standing counsel stated tha