Ex-SCCL employee’s retirement date stands; Telangana HC dismisses plea for last-minute DOB tweak

The appellant, Ch. Ram Reddy, sought to change his date of birth from June 5, 1956, to June 1, 1960, which would have granted him an additional four years of service beyond his retirement in June 2016.

The appellant was initially issued a notice of retirement in June 2015, intimating his date of retirement as June 30, 2016. When his request for correction of his date of birth was not considered, he filed a writ petition in 2016. The same was disposed of in July 2019, directing the employer to consider the appellant’s representation and pass appropriate orders. The employer, however, declined the prayer for correction of the date of birth in August 2019, listing reasons. This was challenged by the appellant in a writ petition, and the writ court refused to interfere in the matter.

In its judgment, the division bench held, “It is trite law that correction of date of birth at the fag end of service should not be ordinarily entertained, more so when the circulars governing the service conditions of the employees do not permit so.” The court further elaborated that such a claim “falls in the realm of disputed question of fact where the writ court should not enter into determination of the date of birth”.

During the proceedings, the bench noted that the employee was not a matriculate at the time of joining service in 1977 and his age was assessed by the medical officer in Form ‘O’ as 21 years as of June 5, 1977, setting his date of birth as June 5, 1956. The court underscored that the employee had affixed his thumb impression, “agreeing that you were unable to furnish any documentary proof in support of your age and as such you were accepting the age as fixed by the Medical Officer”.

The court also pointed out that the employee failed to use available avenues to correct his age, even after allegedly passing his SSC in 1979. Crucially, the rejection order of 2019 issued by the employer noted that the appellant had not availed time-bound opportunities “to submit SSC/T.C Certificates”.

The judgment also noted that after his superannuation, the employee had already “accepted all the admissible post-retirement benefits” as of June 30, 2016.

In view of the reasons cited, the court ultimately dismissed the appeal and concluded: “On an overall consideration of the grounds urged, we do not intend to interfere in the impugned judgment for the additional reasons recorded hereinabove.”