*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY +Writ Petition No.27843 of 2010 %23.11.2010 #B.Mallaiah. ..Petitioner Vs. $ The APSRTC rep. by its Managing Director and others. ..Respondents. !Counsel for the petitioners : Sri S.M.Subhan ^Counsel for the Respondents : Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy <Gist : >Head Note: ?Cases Referred: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.27843 of 2010 The petitioner joined the service of A.P.S.R.T.C., as a Driver in the year 1988. He worked for a long time in Mahabubabad Depot. At present, he is on the rolls of Thorrur depot. The Depot Manager, Thorrur, the 3rd respondent herein, issued notification dated 01-06-2010, informing the petitioner that his date of birth is recorded as 05-11-1952, and that he would retire from service with effect from 30- 11-2010. The petitioner challenges the same. He contends that his date of birth is 10-11-1959, and in all the records maintained at various stages, the same was mentioned by the Corporation. He submits that at no point of time he was put on notice before altering the date of birth as 05-11-1952. He has enclosed the copies of various proceedings, such as, the certificate issued by the Institution, where he studied, the driving licence, the statement of account of staff retirement benefit scheme, nomination/authorization form, office order dated 20- 04-1988, etc. At the stage of admission, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation has advanced extensive arguments and produced the original record of the petitioner. He contends that though the date of birth was mentioned as 10-11-1959, subsequently it was noticed that it is not corrected, and the same was modified as 05-11-1952, in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Heard Sri S.M. Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Sridhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. In all the documents, copies of which are filed by the petitioner, his date of birth is mentioned as 10-11-1959. It is only in the impugned order dated 01-06-2010, that he was informed that his date of birth is 05-11-1952. To get into the root of the matter, this Court summoned the original record of the petitioner. It was accordingly furnished. The application submitted by the petitioner on 09-07-1987 is found in the original file. He mentioned his date of birth as 10-11-1959. He has enclosed his educational qualification certificate as well as the driving licence. In both of them, his date of birth is mentioned as 10-11-1959. Initially, he was appointed on casual basis. His services were regularized along with two other candidates by name, Ram Murthy, and Sai Mallaiah, through office order dated 20- 04-1988. In these proceedings, his date of birth is mentioned as 10- 11-1959. The petitioner has filed a copy of that order, which was furnished to him. The same date is contained in it. However, in the original, that forms part of the office record, the date 10-11-1959 was struck off and 05-11-1952 was written. The next is the declaration form, obtained from the petitioner under Employees’ Family Pension Scheme. The date was recently altered in the originals. Similarly, the petitioner filed option/nomination form. There also, the date of birth, initially written as 10-11-1959 was struck off, and 05-11-1952 is written in its place. Another important document is the declaration under the Employees’ Provident Fund. That was submitted by the petitioner in the year 1987, when he joined the Provident Fund Scheme. It was countersigned by the Depot Manager, Mahabubabad, where he worked at the relevant point of time. The form is the one, generated from computer. The date of birth is mentioned in the relevant column, as 10-11-1959. The date and year is altered with red ink pen and there is no endorsement as to who altered it and when. Similar alterations are made in the form submitted under staff retirement benefit scheme. The petitioner came to know that, alterations were made in various proceedings of his service record, on the basis of an entry in the service register. Soon thereafter, he made a representation in the year 2005, but no orders were passed. On the other hand, the entries in other records appear to have been altered, without notice to him. Just as the petitioner cannot seek alteration of his date of birth, at the fag end of service, the respondents also cannot alter it, at the verge of his retirement, that too, without notice to him. No reason is forthcoming as to the basis on which the alterations were made. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and it is directed that the date of birth of the petitioner shall be treated as 10-11-1959, that finds place in the order of his appointment and other proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.23-11-2010. L.R. copy to be marked. KO