THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.16974 OF 2009 Dated: 30.12.2009 Between S. B. Singh … Petitioner And 1. The APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, RTC X Road, Hyderabad., and Another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.16974 OF 2009 ORDER : The petitioner herein is working as a Driver in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC). By order dated 18.05.2004 he was removed from service. However, I.D.No.72 of 2006 preferred by the petitioner before the Labour Court, Hyderabad under Section 2- A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947., was held in his favour and by Award dated 3.6.2009 the removal order was set aside and reinstatement was ordered with continuity of service but without back- wages and other attendant benefits. On the basis of the said award, when the petitioner made a representation dated 29.7.2009 requesting to reinstate him into service, the 2nd respondent by order dated 3.8.2009 informed the petitioner that he had already attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2007 and therefore he shall be deemed to have retired from the services of the Corporation w.e.f. 31.12.2007 itself. It is also stated in the said order that on verification of the personal records of the petitioner, it was revealed that the Medical Officer, Tarnaka Hospital, assessed the age of the petitioner as 30 years vide Medical Certificate No.81912, dated 5.12.1979 at the time of the initial appointment and therefore his date of birth is 5.12.1949. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed contending inter alia that his date of birth as entered in the Service Record is 10.11.1952 but not 5.12.1949 and therefore he is entitled to continue in service upto 30.11.2010 on which date he would attain the age of superannuation of 58 years. It is also contended that though there was a medical check-up on 5.12.1979 at the time of his appointment, it was only for the purpose of certifying the physical fitness but not for assessment of age as sought to be contended in the impugned order. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation, the fact that the petitioner’s date of birth has been recorded in his Service Record as 10.11.1952 has not been disputed. However, it is contended that since the petitioner failed to produce any evidence of his age, he was subjected to medical examination by the Doctor of APSRTC Hospital, Tarnaka for assessment of his age and the Doctor vide Medical Certificate No.81912, dated 5.12.1979 had assessed the petitioner’s age as 30 years as on that date. It is also pleaded that basing on the said certificate the petitioner’s date of birth was recorded as 5.12.1949 and therefore it shall be deemed that the petitioner had retired from service on 31.12.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while pointing out that the petitioner’s date of birth has been recorded in his Service Record as 10.11.1952, vehemently contended that the date of birth so entered cannot be altered at the fag end of service. While relying upon a decision of this Court in KOTTE RAJAM v. SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LTD., KOTHAGUDEM, KHAMMAM DISTRICT AND OTHERS[1], the learned counsel further contended that the date of birth entered in the service record is binding not only against the employee but also against the employer. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Corporation while relying upon Regulation 19 (2) (b) of the APSRTC Employees Service Regulations, 1964 contended that since the petitioner could not furnish any evidence to substantiate his date of birth as 10.11.1952, his age was rightly got assessed by the Medical Officer of the Corporation and the age as assessed by the Medical Officer shall be final. Rule 19(2) (b) of the APSRTC Employees Service Regulations, 1964, runs as under : 19. Date of Birth: ( 1 ) Every person on entering the service of the Corporation shall declare his date of birth which shall not differ from any declaration, express or implied, made by him for any public purpose before entering such service. For this purpose, the date of birth as recorded in a school or college certificate shall be adopted without any modification. (2) (a) When the year of year and month of birth are known but not the exact dated, the 1st July or 16th of that month, respectively, shall be treated as the date of birth. (b) Where the person concerned is unable to furnish satisfactory evidence of his age, it should be assessed by a Medical Officer of the Corporation and the age so assessed or the age as declared by the person, whichever is more, shall be accepted as final and the employee shall be assumed to have completed that age on the date of attestation by the Medical Officer. The fact that the petitioner in the instant case could not furnish proof of his date of birth is not in dispute. However, it is the case of the petitioner that there was no assessment of his age by the Medical Officer of the Corporation and his date of birth was recorded in the Service Record as 10.11.1952. The fact that the petitioner’s date of birth was recorded in the service record as 10.11.1952 at the time of his appointment and that the same remained as such even till today could not be disputed by the Corporation. However, the Corporation placed strong reliance upon a Medical Certificate found in the Service Record of the petitioner in which it is certified as under : “I do hereby certify that I have examined (name) S.B. Singh, S/o. Bujang Singh (age) 30 years, a candidate for appointment (designation) driver (class) A-1 in the A.P.S.R.T.C. Department whose signature/thumb impression has been appended below in my presence. I consider fit for such appointment. Sd/- Civil Surgeon/Medical Officer 5.12.1979 N.B. Form of Certificate to be used when a candidate is medically examined for fitness for appointment.” A reading of the above certificate makes it clear that it was nothing but certificate of fitness for appointment. Though the petitioner was described as aged 30 years, nothing could be placed before this Court by the Corporation to show that there was any assessment of the petitioner’s age by the Medical Officer before issuing the said Certificate. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner’s age was entered in the service record as 10.11.1952 but not as 30 years as on the date of appointment as claimed by the Corporation. Hence, the impugned action of the Corporation in retiring the petitioner w.e.f. 31.12.2007 undoubtedly amounts to altering the date of birth entered in the service record without notice to the petitioner. In the circumstances, the stand taken by the respondents in the impugned order dated 03.08.2009 that the petitioner shall be deemed to have retired from service from 31.12.2007 cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the impugned order being arbitrary and illegal is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI,J. Dt. 30.12.2009 gbs [1] 2008 (6) ALD 668