HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.16103 of 2009 Date of Order: 09.06.2011 Between: K.Eswara Rao ..Petitioner and the APSRTC, rep. by its Vice-Chairman & Managing Director and others ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PEITTION No.16103 of 2009 ORDER :- This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to issue an appropriate writ calling for the records pertaining to the entries with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner made in his personal file; to direct the respondents to incorporate the date of birth of the petitioner as 19.12.1959 in his personal file as per the entries made in his appointment order and service records, with all consequential benefits and attendant benefits; holding the action of the respondents confirming the date of birth of the petitioner as 01.07.1953 and not considering the case of the petitioner that his date of birth is 19.12.1959, as per the appointment order and service records, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition, are stated as follows: The petitioner was selected by the Selection Committee for the post of Driver Grade-II, medically found fit on 19.12.1987. As per the Medical certificate, his date of birth was recorded as 19.12.1959, as he had not studied in any school. The petitioner was appointed and posted at Palakonda Depot of the respondent –Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on casual basis along with 19 others and after successful completion of one year service, he was appointed on regular basis with effect from 20.12.1989 under Regulation No.17 of the APSRTC Employees’ (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966 through proceedings No.P1/145(1)/89-PLKD, dated 12.09.1989. Later he was transferred and posted at the 3rd respondent depot and working as such. It is further submitted that the date of birth of the petitioner, dated 19.12.1959, as recorded in his medical certificate was also recorded in his driving licence, Service Records, Provident Fund, Gratuity, Members’ Retirement Deposit Fund Rules, APSRTC Employees’ Thrift & Credit Co-operative Society Limited, in the LIC bonds and all other concerned records. The said date of birth is accepted and declared as final by the petitioner. The petitioner has come to know that his correct date of birth is 19.12.1959, but not 01.07.1953 and thereby, he submitted a representation, dated 22.12.2008, to the 2nd respondent stating that his date of birth, may be recorded as 19.12.1959 in all the service records, but without proof of any authenticated recorded evidence, his date of birth is recorded in the personal file as 01.07.1953 and requested to correct the same. In response to the same, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings No.P1/255(4)/09-SLR, dated 31.01.2009, informing that the date of birth of the petitioner, which is recorded in the personal file is confirmed as 01.07.1953. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The respondents filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner initially reported his date of birth at the time of his appointment on 12.09.1989 as 19.12.1959. The said date was considered and entered into in all official correspondence including his Service Record. As per the instructions of the Corporate Office, a special drive was launched to re-verify the correctness of date of birth of the employees. During the said special drive, the date of birth of the petitioner was noticed as 01.07.1953 with all corroborative evidence. Accordingly, the Corporation modified the date of birth of the petitioner as 01.07.1953 and the same was informed to P.F., SBTF, SRBS, APSRTC Employees’ Thrift and Credit Co-operative Housing Society Limited and Family Pension Scheme. Though the date of birth was assessed as 19.12.1959 as per medical certificate issued at the time of appointment, the petitioner himself declared his date of birth as 01.07.1953 in the revised SBT Nomination (vide folio No.63 in P.Case), in revised P.F. Nomination (vide folio No.75) and in all other forms like form-A (Folio-7), old SBT nominations GPF nominations (folio-10, 10A), GPF nominations (folio- =11, 11A), annexure (folio No.12), revised SRBS nomination (folio-81), revised EPS nomination (folio-93). The petitioner himself altered his date of birth as 19.12.1959 where he did not attest at the place of alteration. As such, his date of birth can be taken into account as 01.07.1953. The date of birth of the petitioner i.e., 19.12.1959 is modified as 01.07.1953 in his personal records with all corroborative evidence. The same was informed to the petitioner through the office letter No.P1/255(4)009-SLR, dated 31.01.2009. In terms of Reg.19 of APSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations 1964 (for short, “Regulations”), 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. In terms of circular No.PD-03/2001, dated 12.01.2001 and Circular No.PD-38/94, dated 03.06.1994, it can be learnt that: I) a person once declared his date of birth at the time of entering the service of the Corporation shall not differ from any declaration and ii) if the person unable to furnish satisfactory evidence of his age, it should be assessed by the 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. The Medical Officer of the Corporation has assessed the date of birth of the petitioner as 19.12.1959. But the petitioner himself declared his date of birth in old and revised nomination forms as 01.07.1953 only. Therefore, in terms of the instructions laid in the Circulars No.PD- 38/1994, dated 03.06.1994 of Vice Chairman and Managing Director and Circular No.PD-03/2001, dated 12.01.2001 of Vice Chairman and Managing Director as well as Service Regulations, his date of birth which is recorded in his personal file was confirmed as 01.07.1953. The date of birth of the petitioner, which was initially recorded at the time of appointment was altered and confirmed as 01.07.1953. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the appointment order as well as in the driving licence and in the P.F.record also the date of birth of the petitioner is noted as 19.12.1959 and, therefore, he is entitled to continue in the service till the attainment of superannuation. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that when the petitioner joined the service, the service record is opened and subsequently as per the records the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.07.1953 and, therefore, the age as finalised in the service record alone has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of Superannuation, but not other records. 6. It is not in dispute before this court that the petitioner has submitted a representation to the Corporation on 31.01.2009 with regard to the alteration of the date of birth. As per the Regulation 19 of the Regulations, 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. In the copy of the declaration filed by the petitioner in the service record, the date of birth of the petitioner is noted as 01.07.1953. So also the petitioner has given a Nomination Declaration Form for R.T.C. Staff Benevolent-cum-Thrift Fund, wherein he has furnished his date of birth as 01.07.1953. These declarations were given by the petitioner himself. Therefore, if the Service Record and Nomination Declaration Form under the Employees’ Provident Fund and Employees’ Pension Scheme of the petitioner has been taken into consideration, his date of birth is 01.07.1953. The nomination form for R.T.C.Staff Benovalent cum Thrift Fund, Hyderabad and the first page of the Service Record would clearly go to show that the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.07.1953, whereas the petitioner has contended that his date of birth is mentioned as 19.12.1959 in R.T.C.Employees’ Provident Fund, in the driving licence issued by the Government of A.P., and also in the appointment letter dated 12.09.1989. Therefore, there is a serious dispute with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner. When there is a serious dispute with regard to a question of fact, that cannot be decided by this Court under Article 226 of the constitution. The writ petition is devoid of merit. 7. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedies available to him in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU, J June 8, 2011 lmv HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.16103 of 2009 Date: 08.06.2011 LMV