IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 796 of 2001 Between: Sk.Khaja, E.36247, Mechanic of Jaggaiahpet Depot, S/o Madar, H.No.3/156, Rangu Bazar, Jaggaiahpeta, Krishna Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC., Rep by its MD., Musheerabad, Hyd. 2 The APSRTC., Rep by its Regional Manger, Krishna Region, Vijayawada. 3 The APSRTC., Rep by its Depot Manger, Jaggaiahpeta Depot, Krishna Dist. .....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 issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature or writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in abruptly proposing to retire the petitioner from the service before superannuation vide Procd.No.E1/693(1)/2000 Jaggaiapet Depot, dt 2-9-2000, as illegal, unjust & arbitrary and quash as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents : C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.796 of 2001 ORAL ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the notice, dated 02-09-2000, in proceedings No.E1/693(1)/2000-JPT, issued by the Depot Manager, Jaggaiahpeta Depot of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity “the Corporation”), whereby and whereunder the petitioner was informed that he will be retiring from service of the Corporation on attaining the age of superannuation i.e., 58 years on the afternoon of 31- 01-2001, as per Regulation No.6 (1)(a) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964. 2. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner died 29- 09-2006 and his wife was brought on record as his legal representative and contesting the matter. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Cleaner in the service of the respondent Corporation on 01-12-1965 and subsequently promoted as Helper and again as Mechanic and now working as Mechanic, Grade-I attached to the Depot Manager, Jaggaiahpeta Depot of the Corporation. At the time of entering into the service, he has not filed any proof of his date of birth and, as such, by obtaining the medical opinion it was found that he was aged about 22 years and his date of birth was recorded as 12-01-1943. While working as Cleaner, the petitioner tendered his resignation letter on 28-01-1967 and the same was accepted by the Corporation vide proceedings, dated 01-02-1967 and he was relieved from his duties. However, the petitioner again made a representation to re-appoint him as Cleaner afresh. The said representation was considered and he was taken back into service. After his re-entry into service, further medical opinion was obtained as per which the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 22-09-1944. The date of birth of the petitioner, which was entered at the stage of his initial entry into service, is not in conformity with the subsequent entry after his re-entry into the service. Therefore, after issuing notice, dated 30-09-1994, to the petitioner, final order, dated 09-01-1995, was passed fixing the date of birth of the petitioner as 12-01-1943, which is in accordance with the entry made at the time of his initial appointment. 4. When the petitioner was informed about his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation i.e., 58 years, based upon the initially entered date of birth as 12-01-1943, he filed the present writ petition mainly on the ground that when once his date of birth was assessed as 22-09-1944 after re-entry into the service, there is no power to the Corporation to alter his date of birth. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation, it is clearly stated that the said date of birth was confirmed after giving a show cause notice to the petitioner and after passing final orders on 09-01- 1995. 6. However, it is to be noted that the appointment of the petitioner in the year 1967 is not a fresh appointment and his initial appointment was only on 01-12-1965. Though he has resigned to the service of the Corporation by letter, dated 28-01-1967 and which was accepted by the Corporation vide proceedings, dated 01-02-1967, however, only on the representation of the petitioner, he was permitted to re-enter into the service. Though further assessment was made with regard to his age after re-entry into the service in the year 1967, the fact remains that his continuance is pursuant to his initial appointment on 01-12-1965 only. 7. When the petitioner entered into the service of the Corporation, he did not file any proof of age and did not give any further particulars in Form-A prescribed by the authorities. When re-entry of the petitioner into the service is in continuation of his initial appointment, the petitioner cannot rely on the medical opinion, which was obtained while re-entry into service in the year 1967. In any event, when such discrepancy was noticed, the respondents have enquired into the matter and passed order on 09-01-1995, re-fixing the date of birth of the petitioner as 12-01-1943. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now question the impugned notice, dated 02-09-2000, without questioning the final order, dated 09- 01-1995, passed by the authorities re-fixing his date of birth as 12-01- 1943. 8. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned proceedings, dated 02-09-2000, intimating the petitioner that he will be retiring from service on attaining the age of superannuation i.e., 58 years. 9. By virtue of the interim orders passed by this Court, though the petitioner was allowed to continue in service for sometime beyond the age of superannuation of 58 years, the said period shall be computed as just service and the petitioner is not entitled for any of the benefits for the said period. However, it is made clear that the salary, which was paid to the petitioner beyond the age of superannuation of 58 years, shall not be recovered from him. 10. It is also made clear that if the terminal benefits of the deceased-petitioner are not settled, the same shall be settled as expeditiously as possible and shall be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased-petitioner, preferably within a period of two months from today. 11. Subject to above observations and directions, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 27-11-2008. Msr HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.796 of 2001 27-11-2008 Msr