IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 5758 of 2006 Between: Md. Khashim S/o. Shabuddin R/o. 7-36, Driver's Colony, Vadloor Village, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. ..... PET IT IONER AND 1 APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Managing Director. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. .....RESPONDENT (S) 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 to issue an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the impugned action of the respondents in ﬁxing the petitioner date of birth basing on the medical ﬁtness certiﬁcate ignoring the actual date of birth as furnished in the driving license as well as in the employment, and school certificate and consequential action of the respondents in refusing to correct the date of birth as 22-7-1951 through impugned Proc. No. P1/469(1)/04-KMR dt.27-2-2006 as illegal, unjust, capricious, and in violation of Art. 14,16 & 21 of the Constitution of India, and direct the Respondents to treat me date of birth as 22-7-1951 and extend the consequential beneﬁts in the interest of jutice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.T.M.PRASAD (S.C.FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.5758 of 2006 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in ﬁxing the date of birth of the petitioner as 30.4.1947 basing on the medical ﬁtness certiﬁcate ignoring his actual date of birth i.e., 22.7.1951 as furnished in the driving licence as well as in the employment, as arbitrary and illegal. It appears, petitioner was appointed as Driver in the Respondent-Corporation with eﬀect from 14.5.1977. Since he became medically unﬁt to hold the post of Driver, he retired from service on medical grounds with eﬀect from 16.2.2004 and he was paid with additional monetary beneﬁts from 16.2.2004 to 16.4.2005. According to the petitioner, his original date of birth is 22.7.1951, and therefore, he would attain the age of superannuation in the year 2009, but not in the year 2005 as decided by the Respondent Corporation, therefore he is entitled to additional monetary beneﬁts upto the year 2009. In this regard, petitioner made a detailed representation to the respondents on 21.2.2006 ventilating his grievance and sought for reckoning his left over service for the purpose of granting additional monetary beneﬁts and the same was rejected by the respondents vide proceedings dated 27.2.2006. Hence, this writ petition. The respondents have ﬁled a detailed counter stating that at the time of appointment, petitioner did not submit any certiﬁcate showing his date of birth. He submitted an attested copy of torn out Transfer Certiﬁcate, in which the date of birth was mentioned as 25.7.1962. In the medical certiﬁcate issued at the time of appointment vide M.C.No.61910 dated 30.4.1977, his age was assessed as 30 years. Hence, basing on the medical certiﬁcate, the date of birth of the petitioner was assessed as 30.4.1947 in terms of Regulation 19(2)(b) of APSRTC (Employees) Service Regulations, 1964. The petitioner has never raised any objection at that time, nor he has made any representation within one year of his appointment for change of his date of birth. Further, any representation for alteration of date of birth should be addressed to the appointing authority within one year of appointment as per the instructions and rules in force. For the ﬁrst time, petitioner ﬁled a representation on 21.2.2006 i.e. after two years of his retirement. Hence the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the material made available on record. At the outset, the very allegation made by the respondents that the petitioner has not produced any certiﬁcate to show his date of birth is not correct. It is evident from the original record produced before the Court that at the time of appointment, petitioner, in Col.No.6 of Application in Form No. ‘A’, mentioned that his date of birth is 22.6.1951. Even in Annx.‘B’ of the said application, the date of birth of petitioner was shown as 22.6.1951. In the service register, of course, there are some interpolations, which were sought to be corrected the date of birth as 30.4.1947, which could be on the basis of medical certiﬁcate issued by the Doctor. The Medical Oﬃcer simply noted that the petitioner is aged 30 years, which is not authentic for the purpose of deciding correct date of birth of the petitioner. The Medical Oﬃcer issued the said certiﬁcate only to show that the petitioner was physically ﬁt to hold the post of Driver. On that basis, the respondents could not have decided the age of the petitioner. Further, in the driving licence issued to the petitioner on 18.9.1970, his date of birth was recorded as 22.6.1951. In fact, in Col.No.10 of Annx.B application, petitioner stated that he studied upto 8th class at Zilla Parishad High School and it was recorded in the said column that date of entering into school as 25.7.1961 and date of leaving the school as 22.9.1965. The school leaving certiﬁcate issued by the Upper Primary School, Tandur, Nizamabad district would show that the date of birth of the petitioner is 22.7.1961. It is not that the case of the respondents that the petitioner was aware of the fact as to deciding his date of birth as 30.4.1947. The contention of the learned counsel for respondent-Corporation that under Regulation 19(2)(b) of Service Regulations the date of birth recorded in the service book is ﬁnal and there is no reason for alteration of the same is contrary to their own record maintained in the department. At the earliest point of time, petitioner at the time of his appointment, in the application in Form B & D, categorically stated that he studied upto 8th class at ZPHS and his date of birth is 22.7.1951 and to this extent, petitioner produced before the Court the original Transfer Certiﬁcate issued by the School authorities. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that it can be concluded that the date of birth of the petitioner is 22.6.1951 and not 30.4.1947. In view of the above, petitioner is entitled to additional monetary beneﬁts from 16.2.2004 to 31.7.2009 under Rule 6-A(5) of the Service Rules of the Corporation. Therefore, the respondents are directed to settle the beneﬁts, as such, treating the date of birth of petitioner as 22.6.1951, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 15.9.2008 DA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.5758 of 2006 15.9.2008