IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 8916 of 2008 Between: Md. Sharfuddin, S/o. Hassan Ali, H.No. 12-305, Near Satya Sai Lane, Devarakonda, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Devarakonda Depot, Devarakona, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENT 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 call for the records from the Respondents herein by issuing a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the Respondent herein in calculating the additional monitory benefits by taking in not consideration of date of birth as 24-4-1950 instead of 24-4-1952 in pursuance of Proceedings No. P2/469 (6)/2005-DVK, dt. 31-12-2005 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to law, contrary to APSRTC Employees Service Regulations and also in Violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SRIDHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 8916 of 2008 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in calculating the additional monetary benefits by taking into consideration the date of birth of the petitioner as 24.4.1950 instead of 24.4.1952 in pursuance of Proceedings No.P2/649 (6)/2005-DVK dated 31.12.2005 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to APSRTC Employees Service Regulations and also in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Driver in APSRTC with effect from 27th October, 1978. He was made to retire on medical grounds with effect from 22.12.2005 vide Proceedings dated 31.12.2005. According to the petitioner, his date of birth was recorded in the service register at the time of joining the service of the Corporation as 24.4.1952. As per the date of birth recorded, he could have retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years, on 30.4.2010. Unfortunately, he was found medically unfit to hold the post of A-1 category due to defective vision. Further, he was directed to APSRTC Head Quarters Hospital, Tarnaka for medical re-examination, where he was found medically unfit for the same reason. The respondents, basing on the medical certificate, retired the petitioner on medical grounds by proceedings dated 31.12.2005 with effect from 22.2.2005. At the time of retirement on medical grounds, his basic pay was Rs.8,425/- and the respondent – Corporation paid him the service benefits, namely, P.F. – Rs.1,31,811/-, SBT – Rs.31,835/-, Gratuity – Rs.1,20,830/- and additional monetary benefit, for a sum of Rs.3,31,570/-. The procedure adopted by the respondent – Corporation while paying the additional monetary benefits is the service rendered by the employee or the left over service due to retirement on medical ground, whichever is less. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was paid monetary benefits treating his date of birth as 24.4.1950, whereas his date of birth was 24.4.1952. Thus, the respondent – Corporation paid additional monetary benefits calculating the left over service as two years’ four months’ nine days, which is not correct. The date of birth of the petitioner is 24.4.1952 and his normal date of retirement would be 30.4.2010. Therefore, he is entitled to be paid the additional monetary benefits from 22.12.2005 to 30.4.2010. Hence, this writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated that at the time of appointment in the attestation form the petitioner declared his date of birth as 1.7.1950. On 24.4.1978, the Medical Officer has assessed the age of the petitioner as 26 years as on 24.4.1978. Accordingly, in the service register, the date of birth of the petitioner was registered as 24.4.1952. Subsequently, during the verification of date of births of all the employees it was found that there was difference as to the date of birth as declared by the petitioner in the attestation form and entry made at the column of date of birth in the service register. Therefore, under Regulation 19(2) of the APSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964, the matter was referred to the VC & MD Office for fixing correct date of birth. On 17.8.2007, the Personnel Officer-II, VC & MD Office through his letter No.TR2/255(440)/2007-PO-ii has communicated the orders of the competent authority to fix the date of birth of the petitioner as 1.7.1950, which was declared by the petitioner in his attestation form at the time of appointment. As the date of birth of the petitioner is fixed as 1.7.1950, his date of superannuation was 30.6.2008. While so, the petitioner was declared medically unfit to hold the post of driver. Therefore, he was retired on medical grounds with effect from 22.12.2005 vide proceedings dated 31.12.2005 and extended with certain monetary benefits which were calculated by treating his date of birth as 1.7.1950 and not 24.4.1952 as stated by the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled for any further benefits. He was paid the benefits as per his eligibility. Further, the authorities are entitled to verify the clerical mistakes at any point of time. Therefore, the same was done under Regulation 19 of the APSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations and it was carried out. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned proceedings and other material made available on record. The original service record of the petitioner was placed before the Court. As could be seen from it, the Medical Officer, who examined the petitioner for the purpose of fitness at the time of his appointment, certified that the petitioner was 26 years as on 24.4.1978. It appears, on the basis of this certificate, his date of birth was recorded in the service register as 24.4.1952 and the same was recorded in the very first appointment order dated 27.10.1978 and other subsequent records. In the nomination form dated 10.3.1990, the date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 24.4.1952. The nomination-cum-authorisation form of A.P.S.R.T.C. Staff Retirement Benefit Scheme also shows the date of birth of the petitioner as 24.4.1952. In the LIC Policy held by the petitioner, in which the premium was deducted at source, the date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 24.4.1952. Further, in the attestation form, it appears, against column No.7 the date of birth which was shown as 1.7.1952 was corrected as 1.7.1950 and the age ‘26’ was corrected as ‘28’. All these things would show that all through the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 24.4.1952. This was not even corrected before he was made to retire. When he made a representation after retirement, his case was referred to the office of the Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, where a decision was taken stating that the date of birth of the petitioner was 1.7.1950 and not 24.4.1952. No notice of any kind was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner retired from service on 22.12.2005 on medical grounds and the benefits were paid only for two years’ four months’ nine days. Otherwise, he has to retire on 23.4.2010. For the purpose of treating the date of birth of the petitioner as 24.4.1950, the respondents placed reliance on Regulation 19 of APSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations. However, it has to be noticed that no error was made by any authority as to deciding the age of the petitioner at the time of his appointment. Therefore, alteration of date of birth of the petitioner after more than 28 years, in the guise of Regulation 19, that too, without any notice to the petitioner, is not permissible. Therefore, I am of the opinion that altering the date of birth of the petitioner from 24.4.1952 to 24.4.1950 and making him to retire on medical grounds with effect from 22.12.2005 vide proceedings dated 31.12.2005 is illegal and arbitrary and the same is set aside. The respondents shall treat the date of birth of the petitioner as per his original appointment order issued on 27.10.1978 and as recorded in the 1st page of the service register, treat that the petitioner would retire from service, on attaining the age of 58 years, on 24.4.2010 and pay all the monetary benefits as per his eligibility, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. C.V. RAMULU, J. Date: -12-2008. MVB.