IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SUNDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 4899 of 2008 Between: Gandigoda Abdul Salam, S/o. Abdullaha, C/o. Abida Begum, R/o. Fatehkhan Peta, Nellore. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 APSRTC, Rep. by Vice Chairman & Managing Direction, Bus Bhavan Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Sulurpeta, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the notification bearing No. E1/693(03)/2007-SLPT Dt. 1-10-2007 of the 2nd Respondent stating that the Petitioner will attain the age of Superanuation i.e., 58 years age as on 27-03-2008 are arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to continue Petitioner in service up to 27-03-2013. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Driver in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in 1988. In his service record, the date of birth was mentioned as 28.03.1950. He is sought to be retired with effect from 31.03.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner states that he studied S.S.C. and in the S.S.C. certificate, his date of birth is recorded as 01.09.1955. According to him, the date of birth was entered in the service record on the basis of medical certification and as per Regulation 19 of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964, the date of birth mentioned in an education certificate is to be taken into account. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The writ petition came up for admission on 10.02.2008. Since there was some dispute as to the genuineness of the S.S.C. certificate relied upon by the petitioner, this Court adjourned the matter and directed the learned Standing Counsel to produce the service record of the petitioner. It is evident that against the column relating to educational qualifications in the service register, nothing was mentioned and the date of birth of the petitioner was entered on the basis of the medical certificate. The same date was repeated through out, including the proceedings relating to nomination under provident fund and other schemes. Apart from the petitioner, his wife was also signatory to such proceedings. Though, it is urged across the Bar that the original S.S.C certificate was given to an official in the depot in the year 2005, there is nothing on record to substantiate the same. The copy of the S.S.C certificate filed as Ex.P3, does not gain the confidence of the Court. At any rate, the petitioner did not raise any objection as to the correctness of the date of birth till the month of his actual retirement. This Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is directed that in case the petitioner submits the original of S.S.C. certificate to the appointing authority before attaining the age of superannuation, the same shall be taken into account for determination of the correct date of birth. It is also made clear that in case the petitioner furnishes any fabricated document, it shall be open to the appointing authority to withhold the terminal benefits, pending enquiry into the genuinity of the same. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ 18.03.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}