HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO. 1314 OF 2011 Between: s The Depot Manager, APSRTC and one another ………….Appellants AND M. Rama Yogi S/o Seshaiah and one another ………….Respondents JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Appeal is preferred by the petitioner in the Writ Petition, APSRTC, challenging the direction issued by the learned Single Judge. The first respondent herein was working as Cleaner in the appellants’ Corporation. According to him his date of birth is 1.6.1944 and the school certificate produced by him also proves the same, therefore, the same was entered in his service record. As per the said record, the first respondent’s retirement would be 31.5.2002 but the Corporation has illegally retired him with effect from 31.12.2000, two years prior to the actual date of retirement treating his date of birth as 29.7.1942 on the ground that the Medical Officer has determined his age as 22 years on 29.7.1964. Hence, the first respondent raised an Industrial Dispute vide I.D.No. 111 of 2002 before the Labour Court, Guntur, seeking to set aside the order passed by the management retiring him from service with effect from 31.12.2000. The Labour Court allowed the I.D and set aside the order of appellants retiring the first resonant from service with effect from 31.12.2000. It further directed that since the first respondent already reached the age of superannuation by 31.5.2002 the appellants are directed to treat the first respondent as if he is in service till 31.5.2002 and further directed to pay the arrears, retiremental benefits, treating the date of superannuation of the petitioner as 31.5.2002. Aggrieved by the same, appellants herein filed Writ Petition and a learned Single Judge dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge failed to see that the first respondent did not produce any documentary evidence showing his date of birth at the time of his appointment in the year 1964 and he was sent for medical examination and the Medical Officer of the Corporation assessed his age as 22 years in the year 1964 and accordingly his date of birth was fixed by the Corporation as 29.7.1942. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also perused the material made available on record. Since the Medical Officer certified the age of the first respondent as 22 years, he would be retired on 30.7.2000 is incorrect. On the basis of the school certificate produced by the first respondent, his date of birth was entered in the SR even in the year 1965 i.e., just before 10.8.1965 of joining his duty as cleaner. In those set of circumstances, the Labour Court rightly set aside the order of the appellants and directed to treat the first respondent as if he is in service till 31.5.2002 and further directed to pay the arrears, retiremental benefits etc., treating the date of superannuation of the first respondent as 31.5.2002 and that order was confirmed by the learned Single Judge. But ends of justice would be met if we direct the appellants to pay 50%of the arrears i.e., backwages to the first respondent. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the APSRTC is allowed in part directing the appellants to pay 50% of the backwages to the first respondent treating the date of superannuation of the first respondent as 31.5.2002. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J DATE: 27.12.2011 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.