IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 19483 of 2001 BETWEEN: Sri Chitikela Sobhandadri, S/o. Raghavulu R/o. Eluru, West Godavari. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman & M.D., APSRTC., Administrative Office, RTC "X" Roads, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Personal Manager, APSRTC., Administrative Office, RTC "X" Roads, Hyderabad. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Eluru Depot, West Godavari. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in retiring the Petitioner on 28/02/2001, treating his date of Birth as 10/02/1943 is illegal, arbitrary, erroneous, unconstitutional and also declared that the Date of Birth of the Petitioner shall be taken into consideration either 18/01/1951 as fixed by the Medical Officer or as 15/07/1949 as per the School Records to continue the Petitioner in service as Driver and also declare the Proceedings issued by the thrid Respondent dated 30/07/2001 rejecting the request of the Petitioner to continue the Petitioner in service is illegal, arbitrary, erroneous, high handed and against the Rules and pass such other orders or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the Circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.Y.V.RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents : C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner, who worked as a Driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, seeks declaration by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in retiring him on 28th of February 2001 by treating his date of birth as 10th February 1943, as illegal. 2. The petitioner has entered into the service of the respondent-Corporation in the year 1975. At the time of entry into service, he has given his particulars in Form-A, mentioning his date of birth as 10th February 1943. The said date continued all along and as per the said entry, he was to retire on 28th February 2001, but however, few months before his retirement, he made a representation to treat his date of birth as 15th July 1949, as has been entered in his school records. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has studied upto 5th Class in Mandal Parishad Elementary School in Remalle of Krishna District, and in the said school, his date of birth was recorded as 15th July 1949. Further, it is also the case of the petitioner that he was also examined by the Medical Board, which has assessed his date of birth as 18th January 1951, but inspite of the same, he was illegally retired on 28th February 2001. 4. On the other hand, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is categorically stated that at the time of entry into service, the petitioner has submitted Form-A (MTD-543), in which, he has mentioned his date of birth as 10th February 1943. Based on the same, his date of birth was mentioned in the service record. It is stated that as much as the petitioner himself has furnished the particulars with regard to his date of birth, the age, which was assessed based on the medical examination, cannot be made applicable. It is further averred that the petitioner has adopted the same date as his date of birth in the records pertaining to the Provident Fund and also in the loan proceedings in Co-operative Credit Society. In this connection, the respondents have placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. S. M. Jadhav[1], wherein, the Apex Court has held that the claim for change of date of birth at a belated stage, is not permissible. 5. It is argued by the learned counsel for petitioner that as much as his date of birth is evident from the school records, there is no reason in retiring him without taking the same into account. It is stated that in any event, there is also no reason in ignoring the Medical Board report. 6. In this case, it is to be noted that the petitioner has entered into service in the year 1975 and for 25 long years, he did not move in the matter, disputing his date of birth. Even at the time of entering into service, he himself has furnished the particulars in Form-A, wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 10th February 1943. It is now fairly well settled that the entries made in the service records basing on the particulars furnished by the employee at the time of entry into service, cannot be allowed to be altered at the fag-end of the service. This is one such case where an attempt is sought to be made to continue in service beyond the age of superannuation, by making a belated attempt. As much as the petitioner himself has furnished the particulars in Form-A, there is no reason in seeking for alteration of date of birth. Further, on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner has already retired from service on 28th February 2001 and he was also paid the retrial benefits. In that view of the matter, I do not find any ground to grant the prayer made in the writ petition. 7. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 2nd December 2008 ajr [1] AIR 2001 SC 1666