THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY W.P.No.8014 of 2001 ORDER: Heard. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who later died and legal representative, his wife is impleaded. The case of the petitioner is that, he joined in service in respondent corporation - A.P.S.R.T.C. as Casual Kalasi in the year 1964 and thereafter he was appointed on regular basis on 13.10.1966. His service conditions were governed by the regulations made by the respondent-corporation. It is further submitted that the date of the birth of the petitioner as in the list of Khalasi was declared as 12.09.1944. He was examined by the doctor on 27.09.1996 and was found to be suitable for the post of Khalasi. Corporation served a notice, dated 22.05.1999 to the petitioner on 24.05.1999, on which date his mother expired and he did not take note of the contents of that notice. At the time of his appointment, his date of birth was shown as 12.09.1944 and the same was entered in the records. After lapse of 33 years, the respondent corporation is trying to correct his date of birth showing it as 1942 instead of 1944 and also retiring him two years early. The respondent- corporation issued proceedings in No.ZWSB/255(2)/98-UPL dated 22.05.1999 under which the date of birth of the petitioner was altered as 27.09.1942 against actual date of birth of 12.09.1944 and consequently, a notification was issued on 08.08.2000 retiring him from service with effect from 30.09.2000, which is illegal. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the services of the petitioner were regularised in 1966, his date of birth was shown as 12.09.1944, whereas after 33 years in 1999 his date of birth is sought to be altered to one as 27.09.1942 without any notice to the petitioner and that consequent action taken to retire him on the basis of the above date of birth is illegal. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that even in the year 1966 when the petitioner was examined by the medical officer, and his date of birth was fixed as 27.09.1942 and the same was implemented under the impugned proceedings dated 22.05.1999. This contention cannot be accepted, as in case the date of birth of the petitioner was fixed at 27.09.1942 by the Corporation, they ought to have communicated the same to him at the same time and not after 33 years. Further more, it is impossible for any doctor to fix the exact date of birth on the basis of medical examination. At the most, a doctor can give approximate date with a margin of about 2 to 3 years. In case the date of birth as fixed in the year 1966 was communicated to the petitioner, there would not have been any case for him to contest the same at the time of his retirement, but the same was communicated to him only some time before his retirement and no notice was given to him about alteration of his date of birth at the appropriate time. In view of the above circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be allowed particularly for want of notice as well. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice a decision of this Court in W.P.No.17176 of 2000, where similar questions were raised and writ petition was allowed. However, in the above writ petition, it was observed that the respondent corporation is not precluded to take steps for altering the entries in the records relating to the date of birth of the petitioner after putting the concerned on notice and on enquiry into the matter. Learned counsel for the respondent now contends that the petitioner is no more, there is no possibility of taking any such steps. But, for that reason, the legal representative of the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit, as the respondent corporation has committed irregularity with regard to fixation of the date of birth of the original writ petitioner without giving any notice to him. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. In these circumstances, as the original petitioner died and his wife is claiming the benefits, the benefits payable in pursuance of this order shall be paid to her within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ____________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J Date: 26.11.2010 Rns