Correction of date of birth can only be permitted in exceptional cases with irrefutable proof, and applications can be rejected on the ground of delay and laches, especially when made at the fag end of service or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation.

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri P. Venkateshwer Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Toom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“..........to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in not correcting the date of birth of the petitioner as 04.01.1951 instead of 21.04.1950 as bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unreasonable and consequently direct the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 04.01.1951.....”

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as “Conductor” in the respondent-corporation on 29.04.1977 and thereafter he was promoted as “Controller.” The actual date of birth of the petitioner is 04.01.1951 but it was wrongly mentioned in his service record as 21.04.1950. He further submits that the petitioner submitted representation to the concerned authorities of the respondent-corporation and they received the same on 30-01-1999 but they have not taken any steps to correct the date of birth in the service records without any reasons and the petitioner is entitle for correction of his birth as 04.01.1951 instead of 21-04-1950 and the petitioner is entitled all the service benefits for the said period.

3.1 In support of his contentions the learned counsel relied upon the judgment reported in M. Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, 2002 (2) ALD 121 (DB).

4. On the other hand, Sri Toom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-corporation submits that at the time of appointment the petitioner did not produce any documentary evidence with regard to proof of his age and due to the non-submission of education qualification certificate/age proof, the petitioner was directed for medical examination to assess his age and he further submits that as per 19 of Service Regulations 1964, of the respondent-corporation specifically says that “(i) every person on entering the service of the Corporation shall declare his date of birth which shall not differ from declaration. Express or employee, made by him for any public purpose before entering such service. For the said benefits, the date of birth is recorded in a school or college certificate shall be adopted without any modification. (2) (b) where a person concerned is unable to furnish satisfactory evidence of his age, it should be assessed by a Medical Officer of the Corporation and the age so assessed or the age as declared by the person, whichever is more, shall be accepted as final and the employee shall be assumed to have completed that age on the date of attestation by the medical officer.”

4.1. The learned counsel for the respondent-corporation submits that the petitioner was directed for medical examination and the date of the birth was recorded by the medical officer as 27 years as on 21.04.1977. Thus, the date of birth was recorded in the service register as 21.04.1950. He further submits that as per clause (3) of Service Regulations, 1964 the date so recorded shall be held to binding and no alternation of such date shall be permitted subsequently. The petitioner submitted Form of Declaration for guaranteed provident fund wherein the petitioner did not mention the date of birth and the specific column of date of birth is kept blank that it clearly shows that he had no proof of birth. He further submits that in the year 1989 the petitioner mentioned his date of birth as 04.01.1951 in APSRTC PF (T) and APSRTC SRBS nomination form only without any proof of service.

4.2 The learned counsel for the respondent-corporation further submits that the petitioner has not submitted any documentary evidence showing his date of birth at the time of initial appointment. The respondent-corporation after conducting medical examination determined his date of birth as per the regulation