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 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 the date of birth as 01.07.1961. There is also no dispute that subsequently, the date of birth of the writ petitioner was amended as 25.11.1961 in the service register basing on the date of birth found in the driving license of the writ petitioner. 7. The contention of the respondents authorities is that it was rectified basing on the medical certificate. 8. The contention of the writ petitioner is that it was rectified basing on the driving license, issued to him prior to joining in the respondent Corporation. Copy of the driving license filed along with the writ petition. There is no dispute about the said document. It discloses the date of birth as 25.11.1961. 9. The contention of the respondents authorities is that the rectification in the service register was based on medical certificate. Mentioning a particular date as date of birth, when age is determined on medical tests will not happen. The doctor would only fix a probable age after necessary medical tests. It discloses the date of birth as 25.11.1961. 9. The contention of the respondents authorities is that the rectification in the service register was based on medical certificate. Mentioning a particular date as date of birth, when age is determined on medical tests will not happen. The doctor would only fix a probable age after necessary medical tests. It may be plus or minus two years. In the case on hand, the date was specifically mentioned as 25.11.1961 in the service register after rectification. Therefore, without any hesitation, it can be concluded that the rectification was made basing on driving license only, but not on medical examination. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that as per APSRTC Service Regulations 1964, when the person concerned is unable to furnish satisfactory evidence of his age, Medical Officer would fix the age. Then, the age fixed by the Medical Officer or the age declared by the person, whichever earlier will be accepted as final. The same was pointed out in the audit. Hence, again the date of birth was rectified as 01.07.1961, as it is earlier than the age fixed by the Medical Officer. 10. There is no material on record or no information is found in the service register of the employee showing what is the age assessed by the Medical Officer and that the date declared by the employee is earlier to the age assessed by the Medical Officer. Further, there is no material placed by the respondents to show that the impugned proceedings were issued after giving opportunity to the writ petitioner, as audit raised objection about the rectification of the date as 25.11.1961. 11. In that view of the matter, the contention of the respondents is not tenable in law. Hence, the proceedings issued by the 3 rd respondent are not sustainable in law, and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The superannuation date of the writ petitioner shall be considered as 25.11.1961, as amended in the service register of the writ petitioner. 12. The writ petitioner was continued in service till 30.11.2019 basing on the interim orders and this Court. He retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2019. Accordingly, he is entitled to all retirement benefits considering his date of superannuation as 30.11.2019. 13. 12. The writ petitioner was continued in service till 30.11.2019 basing on the interim orders and this Court. He retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2019. Accordingly, he is entitled to all retirement benefits considering his date of superannuation as 30.11.2019. 13. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the respondents shall process the retirement benefits of the writ petitioner immediately, and release them in accordance with rules, in three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.