IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 16325 of 2008 Between: G. Satynarayana Reddy, S/o. Madhava Reddy, Workship RG-2, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. Ramagundam, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. Rep by its Chairman & Managing Director, Kothagudem, Khammam District. 2 The Area Age Assessment Committee, Rep by its General Manager, RG-II Area, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. Godavarikhani, Ramagundam, Karimnagar District. 3 The Dy. General Manager (E&M), Area Workship RG-2, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. Godavarikhani, Ramagundam, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus : i)declare the action of the 2nd respondent in increasing petitioner's age by two years, by re-assessing his age as 57 years as on 16-12-2004 and consequential proceedings No. RG2/AWS/ATB/3286A dt. 29-12-2006 passed by the 3rd respondent as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same ii) consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service till 31-12-2009, duly granting all other consequential benefits, such as continuity of service, back wages etc. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Badili Filler on 08.12.1982. Since he was an illiterate, he was subjected to medical examination and his age was assessed as 33 years as on the date of appointment. The same figures were entered in all the registers. However, he was subjected to medical examination by the Area Age Assessment Committee, the second respondent herein, on 16.12.2004. The second respondent assessed the age of the petitioner as 57 years as on 16.12.2004. On this basis, the respondents retired the petitioner from service on 01.01.2008. Sri K.Vasudeva Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no basis for the third respondent to refer the case of the petitioner to the second respondent, inasmuch as there was no discrepancy in any of the records. He contends that even where any discrepancy is noticed, the second respondent has no jurisdiction to determine the controversy and at the most, it can refer the matter to the appellate authority. He has urged other contentions also. Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that on noticing that there is some discrepancy as to the age, vis-à-vis his physical appearance, the case was referred to the second respondent and the petitioner has not only appeared before the committee, but also accepted the assessment made therein. He contends that once the petitioner retired from service, he cannot be re-inducted. It is no doubt true that the powers of the second respondent are circumscribed by several conditions. Even a reference has to be made only when a major discrepancy is noticed as regards the entries in various records. The circumstances under which the reference was made to the second respondent are not immediately before this Court. Notwithstanding the fact that the second respondent has only to decide whether or not a case warrants a further examination to an appellate authority, it has arrived at a conclusion about the age of the petitioner. The proceedings, dated 16.04.2004, contain a statement made by the petitioner to the effect that he accepts the assessment made by the committee. At any rate, the petitioner had approached this Court nearly three years after the assessment by the second respondent and six months after he retired from service. Under these circumstances, this Court is not in a position to grant any relief to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:29.07.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}