Premature retirement of an employee is not valid if the date of retirement was changed around the end of the employees service without any notice: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court in case of M.A. Mahaboob v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (W.P.No. 31952 OF 2016) decided through the learned bench lead by Justice P.Madhavi Devi, recently allowed a writ petition by an employee of a transportation company to challenge his premature retirement and seeking reinstatement into service along with all consequential benefits, it was further stated that alteration of date of birth by the employer in service records of an employee, when he is at the verge of his retirement is not permissible.
Facts of the case: A writ petition was filed stating that the petitioner was appointed as a driven by the respondent to work for his corporation after undergoing a due process of selection. The petitioner’s counsel contended that all the documents presented by his client clearly mentioned his date of birth at the time of his appointment and therefore the petitioner was eligible for retirement in the year 2019 when he attained the age of 58 years. It seems that the petitioner was dejected that the respondent without giving any cogent reason retired the petitioner for service prematurely in the year 2016 itself. The petitioner sought notional reinstatement and retirement after attaining the age of superannuation in 2019 and all consequential benefits.
Judgment: The counsel argued in favor of the respondent, claiming that at the time when the petitioner was appointed he have given a particular date of birth but then subsequently claimed a different date of birth in cases like during medical examination he claimed the age to be 30 years which the respondent noted and adopted further, therefore, the retirement was accordingly given.
It was noticed by the court that the respondent’s organization had a mandatory requirement to consider all relevant certificates before issuing an appointment and in the given case the petitioner has submitted all the required certificates, which were duly recorded by the organization. Consequently, it was neither open to the petitioner nor to the respondents to change the date of birth at the very end of service of the petitioner.
It was stated that after the whole issue of retirement was set aside, the petitioner was entitled to all consequential benefits and the fault lies with the respondent for not utilizing the services of the appellant. Therefore, the said petition was allowed asking the respondent corporation to make payment of all consequential benefits, given to the petitioner by giving him notional service, until 2019 i.e. until he attain the age of retirement.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime Legal falls into a category of Best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY MANAL NASEEM