THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.18942 OF 2009 DATED: 14.06.2010 Between: Tummala Devendar Rao @ Tummala Devendra Prabhakar Rao .. Petitioner And The Managing Director, The Palair Cooperative Sugars Limited, Rajeswarapuram, Khammam District and another. .. Respondents ORDER: Petitioner states that he was initially appointed as NMR worker in the 1st respondent Company- Palair Co-operative Sugars Limited, Rajewarapauram, Khammam District, in the year 1990, and was subsequently appointed as Pump Attendant on permanent basis, in the year 1993. While so, in the year 2002, the 1st respondent Company was taken over by Madhukan Sugar Company Limited and then he opted for voluntary retirement and the same was accepted by the management. It is his case that all his retirement benefits were paid, except pension, and when the 1st respondent forwarded 10-D Form to the 2nd respondent-Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension), Sub Regional Office, Warangal, the 2nd respondent sent a Scheme Certificate, which shows his date of birth as 10.10.1963 and the date on which he attains 58 years as 10.10.2021, and the 2nd respondent also addressed letter dated 30.01.2004 informing him that, on attaining the age of 58 years or 50 years, the Scheme Certificate may be surrendered along with the claim for availing the entitled benefits. It is the further case of the petitioner that on coming to know that his date of birth was wrongly recorded as 10.10.1963, instead of 11.07.1953 as mentioned in his school records, making him ineligible to claim pension for a period of ten years, he addressed an application to the 2nd respondent on 10.08.2004, enclosing the school certificate, seeking to correct his date of birth in the office records as 11.07.1953, and the 1st respondent forwarded the said application to the 2nd respondent, recommending to consider it favourably. However, the 2nd respondent refused to correct the date of birth as sought by the petitioner, on the ground that the same cannot be allowed after retirement from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions. The 2nd respondent filed counter-affidavit stating that as per the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, framed under the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, every member of the PF has to furnish a declaration in Form No.2 as regards his date of birth, nominee etc. and the petitioner, being member of PF, has also furnished Form No.2, which was received by the office of the 2nd respondent on 04.07.1992. It is further stated that in the said Form No.2, the petitioner has mentioned his date of birth as 10.10.1963 and, therefore, he cannot change his date of birth, after his retirement from service under voluntary retirement scheme. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material made available on record. A copy of the nomination and declaration form in Form No.2 submitted by the petitioner is placed before this Court, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 10.10.1963. The said form was submitted way back in the year 1992 and the petitioner voluntarily retired from service in the year 2002. It appears, on coming to know that, as per rules, he is not eligible to get pension immediately after his retirement, as he did not attain the prescribed age eligible for pension, the petitioner filed application seeking to alter his date of birth, on the ground that it has been recorded wrongly, with a view to claim pension. Based on the request of the petitioner, his date of birth cannot be altered from the one that is recorded in the service records since several years, so as to make him eligible to claim pension. If, according to the petitioner, his date of birth was wrongly recorded in the service records, his remedy is to approach the Civil Court seeking appropriate relief and then approach the respondents for necessary action, and the relief as sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted by this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 14th June, 2010. IBL