IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.A.No.1053 of 2011 DATED: 26.12.2011 Between: The APSRTC, represented by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Hyderabad and another. ….Appellants And S.B.Singh, S/o Late Bujan Singh Ex-Driver, Hyderabad. .. Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.A.No.1053 of 2011 JUDGMENT: ((Per. Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 30.12.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing W.P.No.16974 of 2009 filed by the respondent-writ petitioner. Respondent-Writ Petitioner is working as a driver in the appellant-Corporation and by order dated 18.05.2004 he was removed from service. However, by award of the Labour Court, Hyderabad, dated 03.06.2009 passed in I.D.No.72 of 2006, the removal order was set aside and reinstatement was ordered with continuity of service but without back-wages and other attendant benefits. On the basis of the said award, when the respondent- writ petitioner made a representation dated 29.07.2009 requesting to reinstate him into service, the 2nd appellant by order dated 03.08.2009 informed the writ petitioner that he had already attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2007 and therefore he shall be deemed to have retired from the services of the Corporation with effect from 31.12.2007 itself. It is also stated in the said order that on verification of the personal records of the writ petitioner, it was revealed that the Medical Officer, Tarnaka hospital, assessed his age as 30 years at the time of the initial appointment and therefore his date of birth is 05.12.1949. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein filed the present writ petition contending that his date of birth as entered in the service record is 10.11.1952 but not 05.12.1949 and therefore he is entitled to continue in service up to 30.11.2010 on which date he would attain the age of superannuation of 58 years. It is also contended that though there was a medical check-up on 05.12.1979 at the time of his appointment, it was only for the purpose of certifying the physical fitness but not for assessment of age. In the counter-affidavit, the appellant-Corporation while admitting the fact that the writ petitioner’s date of birth has been recorded in his service record as 10.11.1952, contended that since the writ petitioner failed to produce any evidence of his age, he was subjected to medical examination by the doctor of APSRTC hospital, Tarnaka for assessment of his age and the doctor vide medical certificate dated 05.12.1979 had assessed the writ petitioner’s age as 30 years as on that date. It is further contended that basing on the said certificate the date of birth of the writ petitioner was recorded as 05.12.1949 and therefore it shall be deemed that the writ petitioner had retired from service on 31.12.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation. By an order dated 30.12.2009, a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the present writ petition holding that impugned action of the Corporation in retiring the writ petitioner with effect from 31.12.2007 undoubtedly amounts to altering the date of birth entered in the service record without notice to the writ petitioner. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant-Corporation and the learned Counsel for the respondent-Writ Petitioner and perused the impugned order and other material available on record. The fact that the respondent-writ petitioner’s date of birth was recorded in the Service Record as 10.11.1952 at the time of his appointment and that the same remained as such even till today could not be disputed by the appellant-Corporation. A perusal of the Medical Certificate found in the Service Record of the respondent-writ petitioner, it is clear that it was nothing but a certificate of fitness for appointment. Respondent-writ petitioner’s age was entered in the service record as 10.11.1952 but not as 30 years as on the date of appointment as claimed by the appellant- Corporation. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the impugned action of the Corporation in retiring the respondent-writ petitioner with effect from 31.12.2007 undoubtedly amounts to altering the date of birth entered in the service record without notice to the respondent-writ petitioner. Under the aforementioned circumstances, we are of the considered view that the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge is quite legal and justified and, therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed upholding the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. No order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 26.12.2011 Gsn