HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI W.V.M.P.NO. 842 OF 2008 AND WRIT PETITION No. 21362 OF 2007 Thursday, the Twenty Fourth day of June, Two Thousand and Ten Between P.Lingamaiah Petitioner AND M/s. Hindustan Machine Tools Limited, Rep. By its General Manager, Narsapur Road, Hyderabad - 54 Respondent THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI W.V.M.P.NO. 842 OF 2008 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 21362 OF 2007 ORAL ORDER: The action of the respondent company in not referring the case of the petitioner to the respondent Company’s doctor for determination of his age as per Clause 26 of the Certified Standing Orders is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner joined the respondent company as helper and at the time of joining the service, he produced birth certificate dated 11.12.1977 issued by the Sarpanch, Gajularamavaram village, Medchal Taluk, Rangareddy District showing his date of birth as 3.7.1952 but, subsequently, on enquiry with his family members and also village elders, he came to know that the said age was not based on any documents and was on a random. As such, he made representations to the respondent to refer him to the Company doctor for determination of his age in terms of Clause 26 of the Certified Standing Orders, in term of which the certificate issued by the doctor is conclusive evidence as to the validity of the age of a workman in the absence of extract from Birth Register or matriculation certificate. On 28.2.2008 this court granted interim direction, directing the respondent to refer the case of the petitioner to the respondent Company’s Medical Officer to determine the age of the petitioner in terms of clause 26 of the Certified Standing Order within a period of three weeks therefrom. As can be seen from the letter dated 30.7.2008 written by the Asst. General Manager (HRM) of the respondent company, in compliance of the said interim order, the petitioner appeared before the Medical Superintendent of the respondent company, Dr. T.Suresh on 15.7.2008 and he was examined, but without determination of age. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Company. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in terms of the interim order passed by this court, the Medical Superintendent of the Respondent Company, though examined the petitioner has not determine his age and, therefore, the interim order cannot be said to have been complied with. In the facts and circumstances of the case, suffice it to direct the petitioner to again appear before the Medical Superintendent of the Respondent Company for re- determination of his age, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the Medical Superintendent is directed to examine the petitioner and determine his age. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of and the Vacate Petition is accordingly ordered. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari June 24, 2010 MAS