IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1766 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 13/08/2008 in WP NO : 20979 OF 2002 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 The Vice-Chairman & Managing Director APSRTC. Mushirabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager APSRTC. Warangal II Depot, Warangal. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND G. Sambaiah S/o. Laxmaiah Warangal II Depot, Warangal. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.HARI SREEDHAR The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) 1. Being aggrieved by an order dated 13-8-2008 passed in W.P.No. 20979 of 2002, this appeal has been filed by the appellants- original respondents. 2. The issue, which was involved in the petition, which had been filed by the respondent-workman, was with regard to his date of birth. Case of the workman was that his date of birth is 10-10-1965 and not 20-8-1950. By virtue of the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge, it has been directed that appellant No.1-original respondent No.1 should reconsider the claim of the respondent on the basis of the entire material which is available on record and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 3. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted that the issue with regard to the date of birth of the respondent- workman had been considered and a decision had already been taken. In the circumstances, it was not just and proper on the part of the learned single Judge to give such a direction again. It has been therefore, submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants that the said direction deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. We have heard the learned Advocates and have also perused the original record, which had been produced by the learned Advocate for the appellants. 5. The undisputed fact is that at the time when the respondent- workman had joined the service, he had produced a certificate issued by the Head Master of Pragathi Primary and High School, Hanamkonda showing that the date of birth of the respondent is 10-10- 1965. It is also pertinent to note that the said certificate had been verified at a later point of time by an officer of the appellants and it was found that the said certificate was genuine. 6. Somehow the aforestated certificate was not considered for the purpose of recording the date of birth of the respondent and when the respondent was referred to the Medical Board for the purpose of examining his physical fitness, the concerned Doctor had estimated the age of the respondent to be 35 years as on 20-8-1985 and as such the date of birth of the respondent was entered into his service record as 20-8-1950. 7. It is also pertinent to note in this case that the respondent- workman had not adduced any further evidence at the time when he was on the verge of his retirement but he wanted his original certificate to be looked into so as to establish that his correct date of birth is 10- 10-1965 and not 20-8-1950 as estimated by a Doctor when his physical fitness was examined. 8. In our opinion, the certificate which had been produced by the respondent at the time when he had approached the appellate authority along with his application for job was not properly looked into in spite of an admitted fact that the certificate produced by the respondent was found to be genuine by an officer of the appellants. The appellants have considered the date of birth of the respondent as 20-8-1950 and accordingly the respondent-workman has been made to retire. 9. In the aforestated circumstances, if the learned single Judge has given a direction to consider the entire record and to decide whether the decision arrived at by the appellants with regard to the date of birth of the respondent is correct. 10. In the aforestated circumstances, we do not desire to interfere with the said direction given by the learned single Judge. We may simply add that if necessary, the respondent may also be referred to a Medical Board so as to ascertain whether the earlier estimate of a Doctor who had examined the physical fitness of the respondent was correct. 11. We are sure that the appellants-authorities shall do the needful as directed by the learned single Judge as soon as possible so that if the date of birth of the respondent is in fact 10-10-1965, he may not be deprived of his job and in that event he shall get an opportunity to serve the appellants for some more time. 12. In the aforestated circumstances, the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 13. Learned Advocate for the appellants has fairly submitted that some more time be granted for taking final decision in pursuance of the direction given by the learned single Judge. 14. It is directed that the final decision shall be taken on or before 13-2-2009. ________________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ___________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 29th December, 2008. GRR