HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT APPEAL No.439 of 2006 Dated: 18-01-2011 Between: B.Madhu Raju …Appellant AND The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad & another. Respondents. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT APPEAL No.439 of 2006 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Ramulu) This writ appeal is filed being aggrieved by the order made in W.P. No. 11018 of 2004 dated 13.4.2006, whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner seeking a Mandamus declaring the order passed by 2nd respondent in Proceedings No.E3/255(3)/2004- PO-II dated 22.7.2004 refusing to consider the request for alteration of date of birth as 8.5.1950 as arbitrary and illegal, was dismissed. According to the appellant, he joined the service of the respondent-Corporation as Conductor in 1970. When he made an application for change of his date of birth, which was wrongly recorded as 8.5.1947 instead of 8.5.1950, the same was not considered, therefore, he filed the present writ petition. During pendency of the writ petition, he attained the age of superannuation and he was sought to be retired from service. Therefore, he filed WPMP No. 22685 of 2004 to permit him to amend the prayer in the writ petition to declare the order dated 22.7.2004 passed by the respondents refusing to consider his request for alteration of his date of birth as 8.5.1950 as arbitrary and illegal, which was ordered on 8.10.2004. However, the writ petition was dismissed on merits holding that according to the respondents the minimum age required for appointment to the post of Conductor was 21 years and if the date of birth of the petitioner is taken as 8.5.1950 which, according to the petitioner is his correct date of birth, he would be under-aged for being appointed as Conductor. If that be so, it is not understandable how the petitioner could seek correction of his date of birth as 8.5.1950, and if his request for alteration of his date of birth as 8.5.1950 is to be accepted, then the petitioner would be disqualified for being appointed as Conductor itself. Further, reliance was also placed on a judgment of Full Bench of this Court in M. Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh[1] while refusing to interfere into the order passed by 2nd respondent. We see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. However, the learned single Judge observed that the petitioner is not even entitled to salary for the period he worked beyond the date of his superannuation, in view of the undertaking given by him that he would not be entitled to any salary. So far as this portion of the order passed by the learned single Judge is concerned, we are of the opinion that whether the appellant-petitioner had given an undertaking or not, since he worked even beyond the age of superannuation, it may not be appropriate for the respondent- Corporation to deny the salary for the period he worked beyond the age of superannuation. Under those circumstances, the writ appeal is disposed of directing the respondent-Corporation to pay salary to the appellant- petitioner for the period he worked beyond the age of superannuation, but the said period shall not be counted either for the purpose of increments or for any other service benefits, such as, retiral benefits etc. We make it clear that the appellant is entitled for the service benefits till the age of superannuation, treating his date of birth as 8.5.1947. No order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. _______________ C.V.RAMULU, J. JANUARY 18, 2011 Tsr/Tjmr/Mvb [1] (2002 (2) ALT 382 (FB))