P V RANGA REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as District and Sessions Judge in the year 1968 by direct recruitment in the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service in G. O. Ms. No. 506, General Administration (SCX) Department, dated 3-8-1968. He assumed charge as District and Sessions Judge on the afternoon of 19-8-1968. In his application dated 17-4-1968 for selection to that post, he disclosed his date of birth as 10-2-1925 which was the date of birth entered in the S.S.L.C. register. Subsequent to the intimation of selection sent to him, he submitted a physical fitness certificate and also declared at that time that his date of birth was 10-2-1925. About 11 years after he joined duty, he made a representation to the State Government through the High Court by his letter dated 13-6-1979 to alter his date of birth from 10-2-25to6-3-26. In support of that representation, he relied on the Birth Register extract of March, 1926 relating to Jallivaripullala Cheruvu village of the then Cumbam Taluk, Kurnool District. According to the entries made in that register, the entry was made on 5-3-1926 disclosing the birth of a son by name Venkatrangam to Paidi Nemilanna. The date of birth was recorded as 6-3-1926 in that register. The High Court pointed out to the petitioner the discrepancy between the date of entry in the register and the date of birth, and sought clarification from the petitioner. The petitioner sent the clarification. "Since the date of birth is noted as 6-3-1926 under Column 3 in the said extract, the date of registration noted under Column 2 as 5-3-1926 must be incorrect. It must be either On the same date i.e. 6-3-1926 or any date subsequent to 6-3-1926 and not earlier. On the above question, my elders informed me that the date of registration might have been made on 15-3-1926 i.e. on the 9th day ceremony when "Namakaranam" was made (i.e. the name was given) In forwarding that representation to the Government, the High Court on its administrative side expressed itself:

(2.) Consequent on the raising of age of retirement to 58 years, the petitioner is due to retire on 28-2-1983 if the age of superannuation is to be counted from the date of birth which was earlier entered in his service register. The age of Superannuation is since reduced to 55 years by G.O.Ms No. 36 Finance and Planning (Fin. Wing-F.R.I.) Department dated 8-2-1983 in terms of which persons belonging to the category of petitioners in extended service under the earlier G.O. would have to retire by 28-2-1983 unless the said G.O.Ms. No. 36 is quashed or its operation is otherwise stayed. Some writs filed by the employees of the State Government questioning the validity of that G. O, and petitions seeking stay of the operation of the G.O. are pending either in this Court or in the Supreme Court.

(3.) The State Government filed an adplication in LA. No. 1412/82 on 14-9-1982 to set aside the exparte decree dated 23-11-81 in O.S. No. 200/79. It is stated across the Bar the said application was dismissed by the District Munsif on 5-2-1982. There is still time for the State Government to carry the said order in revision to this court.