R. Kantha Rao, J.

1. This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents in the nature of Mandamus declaring the impugned Proc. No. LC1/785/WP (56)12-RM. MB dated 18.06.2014 and consequential retirement Notification No. P3/56(1) 2014-ACPT dated 26.06.2014 in making the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 30.06.2014 prematurely, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. It is submitted by the petitioner that he joined in the respondents-Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'Corporation') as casual cleaner on 12.01.1982 and was posted at 4th respondent-Depot. His services were regularised with effect from 24.09.1985. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Mechanic in the month of June, 2012 and on the date of filing of the writ petition, he is working as Mechanic under the control of the 4th respondent.

ii. According to the petitioner, he applied for house building loan with the APSRTC Employees Credit Society and in response to the said application, it was informed to him that he was not eligible because he was due to retire on 30.06.2014, as his date of birth was 15.06.1956. The petitioner, who was under the impression that his date of birth was 15.06.1966, made a representation to the 4th respondent stating that he was born on 15.06.1966 and in proof thereof, he submitted school leaving certificate to the 4th respondent issued by the School Authorities. He submits that in turn, the 4th respondent entered the above date of birth in the service record as well as in other records i.e., Provident Fund Forms and SRBS, SBT etc. It is his version that in all the records such as pay slip and provident fund nomination form etc., his date of birth has been shown as 15.06.1966 and that it was certified by the 4th respondent while admitting him under the Provident Fund Act. As his representation to correct the date of birth as 15.06.1966 was not considered, the petitioner filed WP No. 28222 of 2012 before this Court, which was disposed of on 04.12.2012 directing the Corporation to consider the representation. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent kept the matter for more than 1 1/2 years and passed the impugned order dated 18.06.2014, which was served on the petitioner along with impugned notification of retirement dated 26.06.2014, informing that he would be retiring from service on 30.06.2014. Aggrieved by the same, he filed the present writ petition.

iii. It is submitted by the petitioner that at the time of his initial appointment in the year 1982, he was aged 16 years. At the time when he was working as cleaner on daily wage basis, the then Depot Manager of the 4th respondent Depot, asked him to produce age proof certificate and accordingly, he produced the transfer certificate issued by the School Authorities, which shows that he studied up to 4th class and discontinued 5th class at Kollapur, wherein his date of birth was recorded as 15.06.1966 and the same was recorded in the service record and also reflected in the aforesaid documents. Therefore, he claims that he is entitled to continue till 30.06.2024 on which date he would be completing 58 years of age.

iv. His version is that when he was examined by the Medical Officer on 11.06.1986, he was informed by the Medical Officer that he only assessed his fitness to the post of cleaner and found him to be fit. The said certificate, according to the petitioner, does not relate to determination of age, as his age has already been recorded in the service register.

v. Nextly, it is submitted by the petitioner that the Corporation never informed him that his date of birth was recorded as 15.06.1956 nor furnished the promotion order as well as the seniority list. It is further submitted that as per the Rules in vogue, retirement notification has to be served on the employee prior to six months of his retirement but in his case, the 4th respondent served the retirement notification only three days prior to his retirement. The petitioner s