ORDER
E. Dharma Rao, J.
1. The petitioner herein seeks a declaration that the action of the respondents in disputing about the petitioner’s date of birth in the service record after his retirement and not paying the terminal benefits and the Memo No. SE/O/GNT/P and G/JAO/C/ D/No. 416/2001, dated 1-11-2001 as illegal, unjust and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to pay the terminal benefits by following his date of birth as 16-6-1943 for all purposes along with interest.
2. The petitioner states that he was appointed as Helper in the respondents-Corporation in the year 1960 and on attaining superannuation he retired from service on 30-6-2001, being his date of birth as 16-6-1943. The petitioner complains that though he retired from service on attaining the superannuation, the 3rd respondent by the impugned proceedings dated 1-11-2001 without paying the terminal benefits communicated to the petitioner that there is discrepancy in the date of birth of the petitioner and that it requires confirmation from the 2nd respondent. The petitioner submits that since there was no educational qualification certificate available at the time of his entering into service, the respondents after conducting thorough enquiry in that regard the date of birth of the petitioner was entered in the service record as 16-6-1943 and as such the petitioner retired on 30-6-2001. It is stated that the respondents without communicating anything whatsoever as per B.P.Ms.No. 972, dated 5-11-1984 altered the date of birth of the petitioner in the records. The petitioner contends that the action of the respondents in not paying the terminal benefits to the petitioner without there being any cause is unjust and arbitrary.
3. The respondents filed counter-affidavit, inter alia, stating that though there is alteration of date of birth of the petitioner from 1-7-1941 to 16-6-1943 without proper authority may or may not be communicated to the petitioner the audit objection at the time of finalisation of terminal benefits is valid one and that it is for the individual to verify his service register and communicate his objections, if any, for the aspects recorded thereof. It is further stated that the petitioner retired on 30-6-2001, which date of retirement was fixed with reference to the altered date of birth i.e., 16-6-1943. According to the respondents the alteration of date of birth of the petitioner as 16-6-1943 is not in accordance with the A.P. TRANSCO rules and not done by the competent authority and that therefore the date of birth of the petitioner cannot be taken as 16-6-1943.
4. It is to be seen that the date of birth of the petitioner was entered in the service records as 16-6-1943 after conducting thorough enquiry by the respondents authorities. By virtue of the said date of birth the petitioner was continued in service for several years and also got promotions on the basis of the said date of birth. Therefore it is not open to the respondents after retirement of the petitioner to take objection in respect of the so-called alteration in the date of birth. More over the objection of the respondents that the date of birth of the petitioner was wrongly entered cannot be entertained as already eleven years elapsed. Once there was enquiry conducted by the respondents and necessary alterations were made in respect of the date of birth, the same cannot be disputed at a belated stage. Admittedly the respondents issued proceedings enabling the petitioner to retire from service after attaining the age of superannuation on the basis of his date of birth as 16-6-1943. Therefore the proceedings of the respondents in Memo No. SE/O/GNT/P and G/JAO/C/D/No. 416/2001, dated 1-11-2001 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs.