Decided on June 15,1982

Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj Department, Hyderabad and another Appellant
Durvasula Sambamurthy Respondents


Seetharama Reddy, J. - (1.) The sole but important point that arises in this second appeal is whether the suit for alteration of date of birth by a person in the Government employment impleading the Secretary to Government in the Department in which he has been in service, at a time when he was sought to be superannuated is maintainable.
(2.) The relevant facts which lead to this second appeal may be stated in brief. The plaintiff received G.O. Rt. No. 174, dated 17-2-1978 retiring him from the a. m. of 30th April, 1978. He made a representation to the concerned authority that he is entitled to continue in service up to 30th April, 1980. However, the same was turned down by a memorandum dated 27-3-1978 informing that the request for extension of service cannot be accepted. Thereafter the plaintiff approached the Sub-Registrar, Anakapalli, for a certified extract of his date of birth. But, the endorsement was that the relevant registers were not available in the office and as such no extract could be granted. Since he was to be relieved from the 30th April, 1978, he filed the suit in O. S. No. 53/78, averring that he was born on 30th April, 1925. At the time of admission into 1st Form, his father put an excess age of two years with a view to admit him in the High School and thereby he had given the date of birth as 30-4-1923 inadvertently and the same had been carried out throughout his career. The father of the plaintiff got prepared the horoscope by one Sri Nistala Parvateesam, an astrologer of repute, who is now aged 80 years and is not in a position to move from his bed. That horoscope was prepared in June, 1925. All the family documents were kept in the custody of the plaintiffs elder brother Sri Suryanarayana Murthy. During the year 1977 when the said Suryanarayana Murthy was searching the old records, he found the horoscope of the plaintiff and so, he handed over the same to him and that is how he came to know about the correct date of birth. Therefore, it was prayed that the date of birth may be altered, and the entry in the service register may accordingly be altered. To the said suit, respondent 1 is the Secretary to Government in Panchayat Raj Department and respondent 2 the State of A. P, is represented by the District Collector, East Godavari. In the written statement it was stated inter alia that the suit is not maintainable under law. No notice under S. 80 C.P.C. as alleged, was issued at any time. The plaintiff had many occasions to look at the date of birth, but he never cared to have it altered. Naturally the correct date of birth is 30-4-1923 and not 30-4-1925. Along with the suit, an injunction petition also was filed, which was granted with a direction to continue the plaintiff in service. However, pending the suit W. P. No. 656 of 1979 was filed by the State Government challenging that the suit filed by the plaintiff, was not maintainable. The writ petition was allowed holding that any decision given by the Civil Court will affect the condition of service, which the A. P Administrative Tribunal alone is competent to adjudicate upon under Cl. 6, Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Order, and, therefore, the suit for alteration date of birth is not maintainable. Against that W.A. 110/79 was filed, wherein it is held that the injunction as ordered will affect the condition of service and, therefore, it would not be competent for the Civil Court. Any such petition directing the person in public employment to be continued in service would be amounting to affecting the conditions of service, which the Administrative Tribunal alone has jurisdiction to decide. But, however, in so far as the aspect, viz. whether it would be competent for the civil court to decide a suit simpliciter seeking a bare declaration in regard to the alteration of date of birth, is however held maintainable. While so holding, it observed : "It is open to the plaintiff in such case to proceed with the suit for a declaration that his date of birth is 30-4-1925 if he is so advised. We do not propose to express any opinion whether such a suit for a bare declaration is maintainable in view of the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, as that will be decided by the court below during the course of the suit."
(3.) Thereafter the plaint was amended and the.? relief was restricted to mere declaration of alteration of the date of birth from 30-4-1923 to 30-4-1925 deleting the earlier pray er for causing alteration of date of birth in the Service Register. Thereafter, a representation petition also was filed before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal praying that his services may be continued by giving suitable directions to alter the date of birth from 30-4-1923 to 30-4-1925. That R.P. is pending.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.