LAWS(APH)-1980-12-14

KRISHNAMACHARYULU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided On December 29, 1980
K.KRISHNAMACHARYULU Appellant
V/S
GOVERNMENT OF A.P. REVENUE DEPARTMET Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner entered the Government service in 1949. At that time he gave his date of Birth as 1-9-1923 and it was accordingly entered in the relevant service record and registers. According to this date of birth the petitioner had to retire on 31-8-1978. On 1-2-1978 the petitioner made an application for correcting his date of birth. According to the petitioner his true date of birth is 29-5-1925. He enclosed bis horoscope and an extract of the birth register to his application. The matter was sent for enquiry to the relevant district officials. The Tahsildar conducted an enquiry and reported that the petitioner's case appears to be true. But the Collector did not agree with this view and wtih his remarks he sent up the matter to the Government. On the ground that the Government has not taken any decision and at the same time is proposing to retire him with effect from 31-8-1978, the petitioner approached this court on 21-8-1978 The writ petition was admitted on 22 8-1978 and in W. P M.P. No. 4774/78 an order wae made directing the petitioner to be continued in service "till 31-8-1978 or till the Government disposes of the application dated 1-2-1978 filed by the petitioner for correction of his date of birth, whichever is later". After communication of this order, the Government passed orders on 26-8-1978 dismissing the petitioner's application dated 1-2-1978 on the ground that it is time-barred and also on the ground that the petitioner has no case on merits. With the result the petitioner was retired with effect from 31-8-1978. The petitioner then filed W.P.M.P. No. 6214/78 to permit him to amend the prayer in the writ petition. By virtue of this amendment, the petitioner seeks to attack the Government order dated 26-8-1978.

(2.) The contention of Mr. R. Venugopal Reddy, the learned connsel for the petitioner is that the order of the Government is unsustainable in law for the reason that there is no limitation prescribed by law for filing such applications and secondly because no reasons are recorded by the Government while holding that the petitioner has no case on merits. It is argued that even administrative orders have to be supported by reasons if they affect the rights of the parties

(3.) The learned Government pleader however, seeks to support the order with reference to G.O.Ms. No 50 dated 10-2 1976 and GO. Ms. No. 59 dated 23-2-1979 and also on the ground that this is not a case where the Government need record its reasons in the order. I am of the opinion that the learned Government Pleader is right on both the counts.