IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1598 of 2007 Between: Mohd.Khaja, s/o Abdul Lateef, Grade-A-1, r/o Quarter No.19-B-C-2, Nagarjuna Colony, Kalyanikhani (Post), Adilabad District-504 231. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The General Manager, Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Mandamarri, Adilabad District. 2 The Superintendent of Mines, Kalyanikhani, 2 Incline, Adilabad District. 3 The Deputy General Manager, kalyanikhani, 2 Incline, Adilabad District. 4 The Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Area Hospital, Ramakrishnapuram, Adilabad 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 order or direction preferably one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings Ref.No.MMR/KK2/W-01413393, DT.24-10-2006 of respondents herein in retiring the petitioner from service with effect from 01-12-2007 by reckoning date of birth of the petitioner as 11-11-1947 instead of 16-7- 1952 which was recorded in all the service records of the company based on the transfer certificate of Z.P.High School, Jangaon, Warangal District at the time of appointment i.e., on 30-11-1972 as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to law, contrary to National Coal Wage Agreement and also in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and grant such other relief as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.SRIDHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner was employed as a Badili Filler on 30.11.1972. Subsequently, he earned promotions as Mining Sardar, and thereafter, as Overman. According to the petitioner, he studied up to 9th class in the Z.P. High School, Jangoan and that his date of birth as per the school records is 16.7.1952. He contends that though the said date of birth was entered, in almost all the service records, he was subjected to examination, by Area Age Assessment Committee (for short “the Committee”) and the Committee, in turn, had rendered its opinion, through proceedings dated 24.2.2005, to the effect that the age of the petitioner is 25 years, as on the date of his appointment. On the basis of the same, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 24.10.2006, retiring the petitioner with effect from 1.12.2007. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that his age was entered as 16.7.1952, in all the records, including those maintained under the Mines Act, and he is entitled to continue in service, up to 30.7.2012. He submits that the action of the respondents cannot be sustained in law or on facts. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, stating inter alia that in the Service Register, the age of the petitioner was mentioned as 25 years, as on the date of appointment, whereas, an unauthorized interpolation, without any initial, was made inserting the date of birth, as 16.7.1952. It is also urged that the subsequent records did not tally with the Service Register and other basic documents, and in that view of the matter, the petitioner was subjected to medical test. Heard Sri P. Sridhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Nandigama Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. From a perusal of the various records placed before this court, be it by the petitioner, or by the respondents, it is evident that there is discrepancy in the age/date of birth of the petitioner, in different records. In the Service Register, against the column relating to date of birth, the age of the petitioner was mentioned as 25 years, and at a subsequent date, the said entry was rounded off and the date 16.7.1952 was written, at a different place. Subsequently, that was also rounded off, on the basis of certain circulars. In the certificates issued to the petitioner under Mines Act, the date of birth was mentioned as 16.7.1952. Obviously, faced with the different entries in various records, the respondents subjected the petitioner to examination by the Committee, which in turn, certified the age of the petitioner as 25 years, as on the date of appointment. Accordingly, the petitioner was retired from service. The respondents have framed rules and issued circulars, to deal with the cases of correction of dates of birth. Wherever discrepancy is noticed in the records, as regards date of birth, or where the employees come forward with applications for correction of the same, the matter is required to be placed before the Committee, which consists of two officials on the administration side, and medical officers of the company. The circulars are clear to the effect that if the said Committee is of the opinion that no alteration is warranted, it can close the matter, at its level. Where, however, the committee opines that any assessment is to be undertaken, particularly, by examining the concerned individual, the matter has to be referred to the Apex Medical Board. Such a step, however, was not followed in this case. The Committee has taken upon itself, the task of assessing the age of the petitioner, by examining his physical features. The same is impermissible. The matter needs to be referred to the Apex Medical Board. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the respondents shall refer the matter relating to the fixation of the age/date of birth of the petitioner, to the Apex Medical Board. The petitioner shall be under obligation to appear before that Board, on a fixed date. The Board shall take into account, all the circulars issued by the company, from time to time, in the matter of determination of age of employees. The petitioner had already retired from service. The question as to whether he needs to be reinstated into service, would depend upon the outcome of the certification to be undertaken by the Apex Medical Board. Since the petitioner is out of employment, the Board shall conclude the proceedings, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ 22nd April 2008 Note: Issue C.C. in one week. (B/o) PAN