The rectification of an employee's age for superannuation must be supported by satisfactory evidence and compliance with procedural fairness, invalidating arbitrary administrative actions.

ORDER :

B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J.

1.The writ petition is filed to declare the notification vide proceedings No.P1/693(1)/19 KKD dated 01.01.2019 of 3^rd respondent superannuating the petitioner by 30.06.2019 is illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and provisions of APSRTC Employees (Service) Regulation 1964, and consequently, set aside the said notification, since the petitioner got superannuation as per the date mentioned in the service register and pass such other orders.

2. The contention of the writ petitioner is that he has been working in the respondent Corporation as Grade-I driver. He has no educational qualification, but he is having a driving license issued on 01.04.1982, wherein, his date of birth is registered as 25.11.1961. Basing on the driving license, he attended the driving test conducted by the respondents Road Transport Corporation in the year 1996. He was selected in the test. Therefore, he was appointed as driver Grade-II in the respondent Corporation. He joined duty on 17.02.1997. At that time, he submitted an application to the respondent Corporation. In the said application, the date of birth was mentioned as 01.07.1961, instead of 25.11.1961 wrongly. His services were regularized on 01.08.1998. Subsequently, his date of birth was rectified in the service register as 25.11.1961. He continued services in the respondent Corporation subsequent to rectification of date of birth. But, to his surprise, the impugned proceedings were issued superannuating him with effect from 30.06.2019 instead of 30.11.2019. Therefore, he filed the writ petition challenging the proceedings. An interim order has been passed by this Court on 18.06.2019 to continue him in service as per the amended date of birth. Accordingly, the respondents authorities continued him in service as per the amended date of birth. But, the respondents authorities are not releasing his retirement benefits on the ground that the writ petition is pending in this Court.

3. The respondents filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was engaged as driver in the respondents Corporation on casual basis with effect from 17.02.1997 and services were decasualized with effect from 01.08.1998. The petitioner mentioned his date of birth as 01.07.1961 in the application submitted by him at the time of appointment. As per APSRTC Service Regulations 1964, where the person concerned is unable to furnish satisfactory evidence of his age, it should be assessed by a Medical Officer of the Corporation. The age assessed by the Medical Officer, or the age declared by the person, whichever is earlier will be accepted as final. The petitioner declared his date of birth as 01.07.1961. Subsequently, the date of birth was modified as 25.11.1961 based on the medical certificate No.95308 dated 01.07.1961. But, during audit of service record of the employee, it was pointed out that date of birth of the petitioner is 01.07.1961 and not 25.11.1961. Accordingly, the date of birth again modified as 01.07.1961. Therefore, the impugned proceedings were issued by the respondent authorities. The action of the respondents authorities is legal. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.

4. Heard Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation.

5. The point that arises for determination is

“Whether the impugned proceedings are sustainable in law?”

6. POINT: There is no dispute that the writ petitioner joined as driver in the respondent Corporation in the year 1997. At that time, he submitted an application. In the said application, he mentioned