THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No. 19815 OF 2010 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted by a driver of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation calling in question the legality and validity of the notification issued on 1.7.2010 by the Depot Manager informing the writ petitioner that he would be attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years on 17.12.2010 and consequently he will be retired from service of the corporation on the Afternoon of 31.12.2010. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was recruited to the service of the corporation as of 1.3.1989 and even in the seniority list of drivers of Vemulavada Depot as of September 2009, prepared and published by the respondents has included his name at Sl. No. 28 and in the relevant column his date of birth was noted as 4.1.1955. The writ petitioner has also produced necessary Members’ Retirement Deposit Fund wherein his date of birth has been recorded as 4.1.1955. Even in the nomination form submitted by him for the APSRTC Staff Benevolent-cum-Thrift Fund, his date of birth was recorded as 4.1.1955. Hence, he could not have been declared to have attained the age of superannuation of 58 years any time prior to 3.1.2013. Hence, the impugned notification is liable to be set aside, is the principal contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel Ms.Vijaya would contend that the writ petitioner has been submitting various papers at various times, reflecting his date of birth differently. The Corporation therefore has reckoned his date of birth as 18.12.1952 based upon the note that he was of 25 years of age at the time of recruitment. It will be appropriate to record the following statement found in paragraph 3(b) of the counter affidavit. “(3)(b) It is submitted that, by over-looking all the above facts, Birth Date of the petitioner was recorded erroneously as 04.01.1955, based on the information available in the application form of the petitioner. Subsequently, the same was rectified and corrected and recorded as 18.12.1952 in the service record of the employee. Therefore, retirement Notice No. E1/756(9)/2010-VMD, dt. 01.07.2010 was issued in terms of APSRTC Employees (Service) Reg. 1964. The same is legal, valid and in accordance with the regulations. From the above statement of fact, what emerges is that the date of birth of the writ petitioner was recorded once by the respondent corporation as 4.1.1955 in its records maintained by them. If the same was subsequently altered to 18.12.1955, that would have impacted the writ petitioner adversely. No order, either administrative, quasi judicial or judicial, can be passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the person who is likely to be impacted by any such decision. The respondents do not have unilateral power to effect the alteration of date of birth particularly when it will have an adverse effect on an employee. If one were to require an authority, the same was settled long years ago in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei & Others[1]. Since the respondents do not dispute the fact that they have not put the writ petitioner on notice before unilaterally correcting his date of birth, there is no escape except to set at naught the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. By the normal reckoning the writ petitioner is liable to be retained in service treating the age of superannuation as 58 years, till 3.1.2013. The writ petition therefore stands allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The respondents shall not retire or relieve the writ petitioner from service as proposed by them in the impugned order on 31.12.2010. No costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J knk 20th December 2010 [1] AIR 1967 SC 1269