THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 15538 of 2009 Between: Singarapu Ramulu … Petitioner And Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Rep., by its Chairman & Managing Direcotr, Kothagudem, Khammam District and 3 others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: K.Vasudeva Reddy Counsel for respondents : Mr.Nandigama Krishna Rao, G.P. for Education. THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 15538 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioner herein joined the services of the first respondent- Singareni Collieries Company Limited on 12.08.1972 as Badli Coal Filler. As he did not produce any documentary evidence in respect of his date of birth at the time of his appointment, he was referred to medical examination by the Colliery Medical Officer and his age was assessed as 23 years as on 12.08.1972 and the same was recorded in the Service Records. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as Shot Firer in the year 1976 and thereafter he was promoted as Mining Sirdar in 1977, Overman in 1979 and Head Overman in 1987 in which post he is working as on today. While so, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 17.09.2008 through Branch Secretary of Singareni Collieries Workers Union seeking correction of his date of birth on the basis of the Statutory Certificates issued under the Coal Mines Regulations 1957 by the Board of Mining as well as a School Transfer Certificate in which his date of birth is shown as 05.08.1955. Pursuant thereto, the matter was referred to the Area Age Determination Committee, who had opined that the date of birth as initially entered at the time of his appointment was correct. The petitioner did not raise any objection and had signed on the proceedings of the Area Age Determination Committee. Thereafter, by letter dated 01.11.2008, the petitioner was given an advance notice informing that on attaining the age of superannuation on 12.08.2009 he would be retired from the company service on 31.08.2009. The present writ petition has been filed on 30.07.2009 seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents seeking to retire him from service with effect from 01.09.2009 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to set aside the memo dated 01.11.2008 and to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to continue him in service up to 01.09.2015 duly granting all consequential benefits. It is the case of the petitioner that in June, 1971 he had appeared for the SSC examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, however, he could not get through the same. It is claimed that as per the records of the Board of Secondary Education his date of birth is 05.08.1955. It is also claimed that the same date of birth has been mentioned in all the Statutory Certificates such as Shot Firers Certificate, Sirdar Certificate, Overman’s Certificate issued by the competent authority under Coal Mines Regulations 1957. Even in the Driving Licence and Permanent Account Number issued by the respective competent authorities, his date of birth has been shown as 05.08.1955. Thus, it is contended that he attains the age of superannuation on 01.09.2015. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents the fact that the petitioner had passed Sirdar Examination and Overman’s Examination required for holding the statutory posts of Shot Firer and Mining Sirdar and that his date of birth has been mentioned in the said certificates as 05.08.1955 has not been disputed. However, it is contended that the said certificates issued under the Coal Mining Regulations 1957 are not relevant for the purpose of the employment in the first respondent-company. It is also pointed out that the petitioner was medically examined at the time of his appointment to find out his physical fitness as he did not submit any documentary evidence in support of his date of birth and it was assessed by the Colliery Medical Officer that he was aged 23 years as on 12.08.1972. The petitioner did not raise any objection for the same and had affixed his signatures on the medical form. His claim for alteration of date of birth after putting in service of about 36 years, cannot be entertained at the fag-end of service. It is to be noticed that the procedure for determination of age disputes of the employees of the first respondent has been prescribed in Implementation Instructions No.76 issued by the Joint Bipartite Committee for Coal Industries (JBCCI). In case of appointees who have passed matriculation or equivalent examinations, the date of birth recorded in School Leaving certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances. In case of appointees who could not produce any documentary evidence, the date of birth will be determined by the Colliery Medical Officer keeping in view any documentary or other relevant evidence as produced by the appointee and the date of birth so determined shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances. Since the petitioner falls under the latter category, his date of birth was determined by the Colliery Medical Officer at the time of his appointment as 23 years as on 12.08.1972. As per the said date, he is rightly sought to be retired with effect from 01.09.2009. The law is also well settled that the Courts while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not entertain a writ petition for correction of the date of birth entered in the service records at the fag-end of his service ( v i d e BURN STANDARD Co.Ltd. v. DINABANDHU MAJUMDAR[1], G.M.BHARAT COKING COAL Ltd., WEST BENGAL v. SHIB KUMAR DUSHAD AND OTHERS[2]). In HINDUSTANLEVER Ltd., V.S.M.JADHAV[3] and UNION Of INDIA v. RAM SUIA SHARMA[4], it was also held by the Supreme Court that at the fag-end of his career, an employee cannot be allowed to raise a dispute regarding his date of birth and that the Courts or Tribunals at a belated stage should not entertain a claim for correction of the date of birth duly entered in the service records. Admittedly, in the instant case, the request for alteration of date of birth was made by the petitioner after putting in 36 years of service. Such a belated application made at the fag-end of the service, was rightly rejected by the first respondent and the interference by this Court is not at all warranted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI,J Date: 02-09-2009 KLP [1] (1995) 4 SCC 172 [2] (2000) 8 SCC 696 [3] 2001(4) SCC 52 [4] 1996(7) SCC 421