Date Of Retirement Cannot Be Changed At The Fag End Of Employee's Service That Too Without Notice: Telangana High Court

Brief Facts of the case

The brief facts of the case leading to filing of present writ petition was that the petitioner was appointed as a driver in the respondent's Corporation on 03.11.1988 after undergoing due process of selection.

The counsel for petitioner admitted that in all the documents furnished by the petitioner at the time of appointment his date of birth was recorded as 01.11.1961, and therefore, the petitioner was supposed to continue in service till 30.11.2019 when he attained the age of 58 years. It was the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent without giving any cogent reason have retired the petitioner from service prematurely with effect from 30.06.2016. The petitioner sought notional reinstatement and retirement after attaining the age of superannuation in 2019 and all consequential benefits.

The Standing Counsel for Respondent corporation submitted that the petitioner at the time of appointment had given a particular date of birth and subsequently had claimed date of birth to be different. During the time of medical examination, at the time of entry into service, the petitioner stated that his age was 30 years which the respondent has adopted and has accordingly retired the petitioner from service.

Findings of the Court

The court noticed that the respondent organisation was required to consider all relevant certificates before issuing an appointment letter to an employee. In this case the petitioner had given the date of birth as 01.11.1961 and the same was recorded in the official records of petitioner. Consequently, it was neither open to the petitioner nor to the respondents to change the date of birth at the fag end of service of the petitioner. The court relied on B. Mallaiah v. APSRTC Hyderabad (2011).

Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shobha Ram Raturi v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran (2016) held that after the impugned order of retirement was set aside, the appellant was entitled to all consequential benefits. The fault lies with respondent for not utilising the services of appellant.

Hence, the respondent corporation was directed to make payment of all consequential benefits to the petitioner by giving him notional service till he attained age of superannuation. The writ petition was thus allowed.

Case Title: M.A. Mahaboob v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 74 

Click Here To Read/Download Order