THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL No.739 of 2025

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri P. Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC appearing for the respondents and perused the record.

2. The present writ appeal is filed by the writ petitioner aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 06.02.2023 passed in W.P.No.19266 of 2019 and also the order dated 14.02.2025 in Review I.A.No.1 of 2023 filed in the said writ petition. The learned Single Judge held inter alia that the appellant/writ petitioner filed the said writ petition after the writ petitioner retired from service; that the documents filed in support of the claim of the writ petitioner were obtained after the writ petitioner entered into service and that for the said reasons he was disentitled from claiming the relief sought for.

3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the above Writ Petition holding inter alia that though the proceedings of appointment of the writ petitioner dated 07.03.1992 showed the writ petitioner at Serial No.34 wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 16.09.1961, the writ petitioner had not taken any steps for correction of his date of birth. The learned Single Judge held that the appointment proceedings were issued in the year 1992 and the writ petitioner despite having knowledge at the time of joining into the service in respect of his date of birth being mentioned as 16.09.1961, failed to take any steps to carry out corrections in his date of birth; and having slept over the matter for more than two decades, he cannot now knock the doors of the Court after retirement from service.

4. The appellant challenges the order of the learned Single Judge inter alia on the ground that though the date of birth certificate dated 07.12.1989 issued by the Head Master ZPHS, Gungal, Ranga Reddy District was brought to the notice of the staff to correct the date of birth as 06.05.1966, the same was not examined by the respondent authorities. Further, it is the case of the appellant that the date of birth was tampered as

16.09.1961 from 06.05.1966 without his knowledge.

5. It is settled position of law that for an employee seeking the correction of his date of birth, it is a condition precedent that he must show that the incorrect recording of the date of birth was made due to negligence of some other person or that the same was an obvious clerical error failing which, the relief should not be granted to him (Commissioner of Police v. Bhagwan v. Lahane, (1997) 1 SCC 247)

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of M.P. v.

Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664 has held as under:

8. It needs to be emphasised that in matters involving correction of date of birth of a government servant, particularly on the eve of his superannuation or at the fag end of his career, the court or the tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the service book at the time of entry into any government service. Unless the court or the tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and that such a claim is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed or as per the consistent procedure adopted by the department concerned, as the case may be, and a real injustice has been caused to the person concerned, the court or the tribunal should be loath to issue a direction for correction of the service book. Time and again this Court has expressed the view that if a government servant makes a request for correction of the recorded date of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond the time fixed by his employer, he cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth, even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. No court or the t