THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.33133 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner joined the service of the erstwhile A.P. Electricity Board as an Attender on 11.05.1973. He did not have any proof of his date of birth. Therefore, he was subjected to medical examination and his age was assessed as 21 years. Taking the same into account, his date of birth was mentioned in the service register as 11.05.1952. On attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner was retired from service on 31.05.2010, through the proceedings issued by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Erragadda. The pension papers pertaining to the service of the petitioner were submitted for processing. The Chairman and Managing Director of the Central Power Distribution Company Limited, an offshoot of the Electricity Board, 1st respondent herein issued proceedings, dated 31.05.2010 stating that according to the memo, dated 28.12.1987 issued by the Board, the date of birth of the petitioner ought to have been mentioned as 01.07.1951 and on that basis, he stood retired with effect from 01.07.2009. It is further directed that the service of the petitioner beyond that date must be treated as the one of re-employment and that the petitioner is not entitled for gratuity and other benefits for that period. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the said memo. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that the memo, dated 28.12.1987 was issued prescribing the formula to be followed, whenever an employee does not have the proof of his date of birth. It is stated that the date of birth of the petitioner was entered in the service record as 11.05.1952 contrary to the memo and that mistake was committed later on. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. There is no dispute that the petitioner joined the service of the erstwhile electricity board on 11.05.1973 and that his date of birth was mentioned as 11.05.1952 on the basis of assessment of the age. It is on the basis of this date of birth that the petitioner was retired from service on 31.05.2010 on attaining the age of 58 years. While processing the pension papers pertaining to the petitioner, the Chairman and Managing Director opined that the date of birth of the petitioner ought to have been mentioned as 01.07.1951 and that he ought to have been retired with effect from 30.06.2009. The only basis for taking such a view is the memo, dated 28.12.1987. The action taken by the respondents cannot be sustained in law. Firstly, the so-called memo was not in vogue, when the petitioner joined the service. Secondly, even if there is a possibility to apply the memo of the year 1987 for the appointments made earlier thereto, no steps were taken by the respondents, till the petitioner was retired from service through a specific order issued by the 3rd respondent. Law does not permit the service rendered by an employee to be reduced by any period, unless the service so rendered was not referable to any Rule or that it is on the basis of any misrepresentation. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned memo is set aside. The petitioner shall be extended all the service benefits by treating his date of birth as 11.05.1952. The respondent shall release the retirement benefits of the petitioner within a period of 12 months from today. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 27.10.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.33133 of 2010 Date: 27.10.2011 JSU