IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1314 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 29/09/2008 in WP NO : 21295 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, RTC Cross Roads, Hyderabad. 2 A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Dy. Chief Personnel Manager, Zonal Work Shop, V.T. Agraharam Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND Avala Nooka Ratnam S/o.Late A.Sunkanna R/o. Srungavriksham, Tondangi Mandal, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.N.V.ANANTHA KRISHNA The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by an interim order dated 29-9-2008 passed in W.P.M.P.No. 27835 of 2008 in W.P.No. 21295 of 2008, this appeal has been filed. The question involved in the writ petition is with regard to change of date of birth of the respondent. Upon perusal of the papers and upon hearing the learned Advocates, we ﬁnd that practically at the fag end of his career, the respondent had approached the appellant- employer with a request to change his date of birth. On 1-2- 2005 the respondent made a request to change his date of birth from 23-9-1950 to 1-7-1955. The said application was rejected. The respondent did not challenge the order dated 14-11-2005, whereby his application was turned down. Subsequently he ﬁled W.P.No. 21295 of 2008 to direct the appellants-respondents not to retire the respondent-writ petitioner on superannuation with effect from 30-9-2008. After hearing the learned Advocates, the learned Single Judge has passed the interim order whereby it has been directed that the respondent-writ petitioner should not be made to retire with eﬀect from 30-9-2008 in terms of the letter dated 1-4-2008. In our opinion, by virtue of the impugned order, the writ petition ﬁled by the respondent is practically allowed. It is a settled legal practice that interim order should not be in such a way, which would amount to allowing the writ petition itself. In our opinion, the balance of convenience was not in favour of the respondent-writ petitioner, because the respondent can be very well compensated in terms of money if ultimately he succeeds in the writ petition. In view of the fact that the respondent had approached the appellant-employer at a very belated stage, in our opinion, the appellant-employer did not make any change in the date of birth. We do not want to go into merits of the case in detail in view of the fact that the writ petition is still pending before the learned Single Judge. For the aforestated reasons, we allow the appeal. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. We are sure that the writ petition shall be heard at an early date if a request is made to the learned Single Judge by the respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ __________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 16th October, 2008. GRR