PANDURANGAM Vs. SC RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner at the time of his entry into the Railway service entered his date of birth as 7-3-1922. The age of superannuation in the Railways is 58 years, and according to his date of birth as entered in the Service Register, tha petitioner should have retired by March 1980. But he had an extension by a few months and retired in June 1980. While in service, he had first made an application on 1-5-1961 claiming that his correct date of birth was not 7-3-1922 but 5-10-1924. That application of the petitioner was rejected by the Railways on 27-7-61. Once again, he made another application on 20-3-1973. That too was rejected on 3-8-73. Once again, he made a claim for alteration of his date of birth on 26-6-78. But that was also rejected on 24-2-79. Even the Railway Board had rejected his appeal on 17-10-79. He had therefore filed O.S. No. 188/79 on the file of III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to which he made the Government of Andhra Pradesh alone a party seeking an alteration in his S.S.C. School register pleading that his date of birth was 5-10-1924 instead of 7-3-1922. That suit was dismissed. But in appeal in A.S.No. 160/80 that suit was allowed on 29-12-80.

(2.) After the suit was decreed, the State Government which was a party to the above suit, issued G.O.Ms. No. 396 dated 1-4-81 directing the correction of the petitioner's date of birth in the S.S,C. school register. The petitioner, the very next day i.e., on 2-4-81, wrote to the Railways requesting them also to effect changes in his service register recording his correct date of birth, That request of the petitioner was rejected on 29-8-81. The petitioner then filed W.P.No. 6104/81 challenging the order of the Railway authorities dated 29-8-81 and seeking virtually for the enforcement of the Civil Court's decree. But the learned Single Judge of this court dismissed that W.P. dt. 23-9-81 on the ground that the Civil Court's decree would not bind the Railway authorities, because the Railways were not parties to the Civil Court's decree. Against the judgement of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner filed Writ Appeal No. 626 of 1981 which was allowed on 11-2-82 setting aside the Railway authorities order dated 29-8-81 and directing the Railways to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in the light of the observations contained in that judgement. Now the Railways had passed the impugned order in June 1982 with reference to the petitioner's application dated 20-2-82 and rejected the petitioner's claim to have been born not on 7-3-22 but on 5-10-1924. The order passed by the Railways, considered in some detail as to why the Railways were not bound by the Civil Court's decree. The reason given by the impugned order was that the Railways were not made parties to that decree. The Railways also observed that the horoscope cannot be a reliable guide to determine the petitioner's date of birth. Now the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order of the Railways and for a direction to the Railways to enter the petitioner's date of birth in his service register as 5-10-24 and reinstate the petitioner and pay salary and other allowances from 1-7-80 when he was superannuated, till he retires.

(3.) Mr. Ashok, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order is not one which has been passed in compliance with the directions issued by this court in the aforementioned. Writ Appeal and that the Railways ought to have followed the Civil Court's decree and altered the petitioner's date of birth in his service register as the State Government had done in the case of his S.S.C. School register. He has also argued that on the above basis his client should be granted the relief of reinstatement and grant of all consequential benefits.