IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.1705 of 2004 Between: Godavari Kanakaiah …..Petitioner And The Singareny Collieries Company Limited, Rep. By its General Manager, Kothagudem, Khammam District & another …..Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.1705 of 2004 ORDER This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents’ authorities in not correcting the date of birth of the petitioner in his service record and directing him to retire on 31.01.2004, as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service by suspending the impugned proceedings in Ref.No.5B/wo/54/03/588, dated 20.08.2002, issued by the 2nd respondent. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he joined in the employment of the 1st respondent, Singareny Colleries Company Limited, in the year 1974 as T.T.M. General Majdoor and in the year 1996, he was promoted as Timber Man. At the time of his joining duty, he stated the authorities that his date of birth is 21.01.1954 and studied up to V Class and also handed over his Transfer Certificate to the respondent authorities. About a decade back, the respondent authorities have issued an Identity Card to the petitioner wherein his age was mentioned as 30 years as on 21.01.1974. Since he born in the year 1954, his age should be 20 years as on 21.01.1974. Therefore, immediately he represented the matter to the respondent authorities and sought for correction of the mistake. In support of his claim he also furnished a Doctor Certificate, which shows his age. After repeated requests, the respondent authorities promised that they would correct his date of birth in the service register, but without doing so, issued the impugned proceedings stating that his age is 60 years as on 21.01.2004 and his last working day is 31.01.2004 and he should retire on that day on attaining the age of superannuation. On receipt of the impugned order, again he approached the respondent authorities with a request to make necessary corrections, in respect of his date of birth. But, the respondent authorities did not consider his request. Hence, the present writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, counter affidavit has been filed, inter alia, submitted that the petitioner is a workman of the respondents’ Company, within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and he has an alternative remedy for his grievance under the said Act. It is further submitted that the petitioner himself admitted that his age was 20 years, as on the date of 21.01.1974, when he joined the service of the respondents’ Company, but he never challenged the same. Therefore, as the petitioner’s date of birth is consistently mentioned in all the records of the respondents’ Company, based on the same, impugned order has been passed and at this stage, he cannot seek any corrections in respect of his date of birth. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though at the time of joining the employment of the respondents’ Company stating that his age was 20 years as on 21.01.1974, after a decade, the respondent authorities have issued Identity Card showing his age as 30 years, as on 21.01.1974. Thereafter, he stated to have repeatedly requested the respondent authorities for necessary corrections, in respect of his date of birth. But without considering his request, the respondent authorities have issued the impugned order dated 20.08.2002 informing that his last working day is 31.01.2004 and on attaining the age of superannuation, he has to retire on the said date. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, in the counter affidavit, it is categorically submitted that when the petitioner known that his age was 20 years as on 21.01.1974 and in the Identity Card issued by the Company his age was mentioned as 30 years, but he never challenged the same. But as and when the impugned order dated 20.08.2002 is issued, the petitioner is taking the plea that his date of birth, entered in the records, is not correct. From a perusal of the records, it is clear that the petitioner submitted that he repeatedly requested the respondent authorities for necessary corrections, in respect of his date of birth, but the petitioner did not file an iota of paper showing that he had requested the respondent authorities for correction of his date of birth, soon after his joining in the employment of the respondents’ Company and even before issuing the impugned order. Therefore, it is unsustainable that the petitioner had requested the respondent authorities for correction of his date of birth and at this stage, the petitioner cannot question the impugned order dated 20.08.2002. Further, the correction of date of birth is purely a question of fact and once the date of birth is entered into the Service Record, it cannot be altered unless and until proper cause is shown and more so, it cannot be done at the fag end of his retirement on one ground or the other. In view of the above, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 20.08.2002 and the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 27.01.2011 Tjmr/LSK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO. 1705 OF 2004 DATE: 27.01.2011