IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 10530 of 2000 Between: Smt. K.Mani, E.101749 Sweeper R/o. Amalapuram, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Executive Director, Vizianagaram. 2 The Personal Officer, APSRTC O/o The Regional Manager, Rajahmundry. East Godavari District. 3 The Depot Manager,APSRTC, Amalapuram Depot, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 of Writ fo MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents herein in altering the date of birth of the petitioner in the service record as 18.6.1943 instead of 6.11.1954 as assessed by the Medical Oﬃcer and rejecting my representation for correction of my date of birth vide Proc.No.E4/255(27)/99-Ed-VZM, Vizianagaram dt. 16.2.2000 and the orders passed by the 2nd respondent herein in Proc.No. E1/255(16)/99-RM-RJY, dt.13.10.99 as illegal, unjust and arbitrary and contrary to Regulation 19 of APSRTC Employees Service Regulations 1964 and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents : MR.Y.VIVEKANANDA SWAMY The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 10530 of 2000 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner, who was appointed as a Sweeper in A.P.State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), seeks declaration by way of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents in altering her date of birth in service record as 18.06.1943 instead of 06.11.1954, as illegal and arbitrary, and to direct the respondents to continue her in service by taking her date of birth as 06.11.1954. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Casual Sweeper on daily wage basis at Amalapuram Depot of APSRTC. Subsequently, she was de-casualized and appointed as a Sweeper on regular basis with eﬀect from 01.03.1985. Though the petitioner has declared her date of birth as 18.06.1943 in the declarations made by her for the purpose of Provident Fund, but however, based on the medical ﬁtness certiﬁcate, misconstruing the same as age assessment certiﬁcate, initially, the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 06.11.1954. When it came to light, an order dated 14.06.1990 was passed in R.C.P1/232(17)/89, determining the date of birth of the petitioner as 18.06.1943, and the same was communicated to the petitioner. Thereafter also, in the nomination form submitted by the petitioner on 19.10.1990 under the Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, she has mentioned her date of birth as 18.06.1943, but however, when the respondents were to retire her taking the said date as her date of birth, the petitioner has ﬁled this writ petition, and this Court, by order dated 08.06.2001, directed the respondents to continue the petitioner in service, and the said order continued all along, till date. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. In this writ petition, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that as the date of birth of the petitioner was correctly mentioned in the service record as 06.11.1954, there is no authoritative jurisdiction for the respondents to correct it as 18.06.1943. It is submitted that as the entries are correctly made in the service records of the petitioner, there was no reason for altering her date of birth, subsequently. But from the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that the petitioner herself has shown her date of birth as 18.06.1943, in the declarations made by her for the purpose of Provident Fund. But however, when her services were de-casualized and she was appointed as a Sweeper on regular basis, she was examined by the Medical Oﬃcer, and in the ﬁtness certiﬁcate issued by him, her age was mentioned as 30 years. Though the said certiﬁcation was not for the purpose of determining the age, but taking into account the age mentioned in the said certiﬁcate, initially, a wrong entry was made in the service record of the petitioner, but however, subsequently, when it was noticed on audit objection, it was rectiﬁed by an order, dated 14.06.1990, passed in oﬃce order No.P1/232(17)/89-AMP. It is not in dispute that the order dated 14.06.1990 has become ﬁnal, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner was determined as 18.06.1943. In that view of the matter, and further, in view of the subsequent declaration made by the petitioner in the nomination form for the purpose of General Provident Fund in the month of October 1990, it is not open for the petitioner to question such entry, nearly after ten years of the order having been passed by the competent authority. Asmuch as the order dated 14.06.1990 has become ﬁnal, it is binding on the petitioner and in view of the same, it is not open for her to seek any relief by way of Mandamus ten years thereafter, without questioning the said order. 5. Asmuch as the petitioner is continued in service even after attaining the age of superannuation in view of the interim orders passed by this Court, I dispose of the writ petition, directing the respondents to take the date of birth of the petitioner as 18.06.1943 for the purpose of all retrial beneﬁts. The service rendered by the petitioner beyond the age of superannuation, shall be treated as a just service, without computing the same for the retiral beneﬁts. It is further directed that while taking the date of birth of the petitioner as 18.06.1943 for computation of her service for retiral beneﬁts, no recoveries shall be made on account of salary paid to her, for the service rendered beyond the age of superannuation. 6. Asmuch as the petitioner had died during the pendency of this writ petition, and her sister alone has come on record as her legal heir, it is open for the respondents to make inquiry about all the legal heirs of the deceased-petitioner, for payment of her retiral benefits. 7. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 15th September 2008 ajr. To 1 The Executive Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Vizianagaram. 2 The Personal Officer, APSRTC O/o The Regional Manager, Rajahmundry. East Godavari District. 3 The Depot Manager,APSRTC, Amalapuram Depot, Amalapuram, East Godavari District.