THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 31541 OF 2010 O R D E R : This Writ Petition has been instituted by a Head-Overman of the 1st respondent - The Singareni Collieries Company Limited for setting at naught the proceedings, dated 23/26.04.2010 as well as the proceedings, dated 25.09.2010, approving the date of birth of the petitioner as 21.12.1950 instead of 10.02.1953. On the strength and basis of this approved and revised date of birth, the petitioner has been proposed to be retired on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.12.2010. The case of the petitioner is that he was recruited to the service of the 1st respondent Singareni Collieries Company Limited as a Badli Coal Filler on 08.01.1972. After putting in two years of continuous service as a Badli Coal Filler, he was confirmed as a Coal Filler in 1974. Subsequently, he earned promotions as Shot Firer, Mining Sardar, Overman and further as Head-Overman. The petitioner has asserted that at the time of his initial appointment itself, his date of birth has been entered as 10.02.1953 in the service records, maintained by the 1st respondent Singareni Collieries Company Limited. Subsequently, when Form-B registers are maintained, his date of birth has been continuously reflected as 10.02.1953. Since the age of superannuation for this class of employees being 60 years, he is entitled to be retained in the service till the end of February 2013 and as against this, the impugned order has been passed approving his date of birth as 21.12.1950 and on that basis, he was sought to be retired from service treating him to have attained the age of superannuation of 60 years by the end of December 2010. The case of the respondents Singareni Collieries Company Limited is that at the time of his initial recruitment as a Badli Coal Filler, the petitioner has not produced any credible educational record or date of birth certificate and on the other hand, when he has been subjected to a medical examination, like all other employees are being subjected to, it has been clearly recorded that he was 21 years of age. Since the examination took place in the month of December 1971, Singareni Collieries Company Limited has rightly construed the petitioner to have been born in December 1950 and that is exactly what has been approved even now. Therefore, the petitioner cannot make a grievance out of the same. Heard Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Pattabhi Rama Rao, learned counsel deputizing for Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that as per Rule 77 of the Mines Rules, 1955, Form-B register is required to be maintained by the 1st respondent herein and a perusal of Form-B register clearly discloses that at Sl.No. 4 thereof, the age and sex of the employee has got to be entered therein and the Form-B register has got to be maintained under the signature of the Manager concerned and the entries made therein cannot be altered at a later point of time. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that Form-B register was, in fact, maintained by the 1st respondent company, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner has been clearly recorded as 10.02.1953 and his date of initial engagement in service has also been clearly recorded as 08.01.1972. It is further contended that the 1st respondent company provides identity cards to each of the employees and in the said card also, against the column date of birth, it was recorded as 10.02.1953 for the petitioner. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that before any candidate is permitted to appear for Overman’s certificate examination, the necessary particulars have got to be entered and certified as such by the competent authority of the 1st respondent Collieries Company Limited and in the case of the writ petitioner, it was clearly recorded that he was born on 10.02.1953 and accordingly, the Overman’s certificate provided to him under the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 clearly contains the entry 10.02.1953 in the relevant column. Similarly, even when he appeared for the Sardar’s examination, on 02.08.1995, his date of birth was recorded as 10.02.1953. It is therefore, very clear that all through, the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded and noted as 10.02.1953. The learned counsel has also pointed out that in the report of medical examination undertaken in December 1971, his date of birth has been recorded therein as 10.02.1953, but however, in the personal record of the writ petitioner, his date of birth is now ordered to be revised as 21.12.1950 and therefore, the 1st respondent is trying to alter his date of birth to his disadvantage suddenly. The decision of the 1st respondent Singareni Collieries Company Limited to seek to retire the writ petitioner by the end of December 2010, based upon the revised date of birth, is therefore, illegal. Sri Pattabhi Rama Rao, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that at the time when the writ petitioner sought for employment in Singareni Collieries Company Limited, he has been subjected to a medical examination and when that was undertaken on 21.12.1971, the petitioner has clearly mentioned his age as 21 years and accordingly, the same was recorded in the employee’s personal record, but however, the entry relating to the age of the petitioner seems to have suffered an unauthorized alteration by converting ‘21’ as ‘18’ and then, the date of birth was introduced therein as 10.02.1953 and the correction that has been carried out in this regard is visible to a naked eye and when routinely the employees’ personal records are verified by the company, the discrepancy has come to the notice and hence, the petitioner has been subjected to examination by the Area Age Determination Committee comprising of the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Area Hospital at Bhupalapalli of the company, which also included the Deputy General Manager (Personnel) at Bhupalapalli and the General Manager of Bhupalapalli Mine. The petitioner appeared before the said Committee and the Area Age Determination Committee, after thoroughly examining the entire issue, has confirmed his age as 21 years as on 21.12.1971 and on that basis, the company has arrived at the date of birth of the petitioner as 21.12.1950 and this fact has been explained to him in Telugu language, which is his mother tongue and the petitioner, having understood the decision of the Area Age Determination Committee on 15.02.2010, has affixed his signature and he has also given an undertaking that he will not raise any dispute with regard to the finding recorded by the Area Age Determination Committee. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the writ petitioner is precluded from raising any such dispute at this point of time. It is a fact that the petitioner appears to have affixed his left hand thumb impression on the report of the medical examination at the time of his initial engagement as a Badli Coal Filler by the 1st respondent company. The medical examination is undertaken on 21.12.1971. Various particulars relating to the petitioner have been entered therein. Against column No.4 relating to the date of birth /age, it was recorded as “21 years”. This medical examination report was signed by the Surgeon of the Collieries Hospital at Bellampalli. As was already noted, the writ petitioner has affixed his left hand thumb impression, but he has not signed the same. It is apparent therefore, from the said certificate, that the writ petitioner was either illiterate or semi-literate at the time of his initial medical examination. Otherwise, he could have signed the said certificate. Instead, his left hand thumb impression has been obtained on the said certificate. The entries were all made therein in English language. There is no further certification by the Surgeon that the contents of the said certificate have been explained to the petitioner at that time, for, any knowledge to be ascribed to the writ petitioner that he was held to be 21 years of age as on 21.12.1971. Insofar as the rest of the Form-B register entries are concerned, there is no dispute that Form-B register contains date of birth of the petitioner as 10.02.1953. The explanation of the 1st respondent Singareni Collieries Company Limited was that the copies of Form-B register produced by the writ petitioner are subsequent to his engagement and promotion as Coal Filler or Mining Sardar or Overman and it is not the first or the initial Form-B register. The possibility of the error creeping into the subsequent registers, according to Sri Pattabhi Rama Rao, learned counsel is, traceable to the improper correction carried out by altering ‘21’ appearing against his age as ‘18’ and incorporating the date 10.02.1953 in his initial service/personal records. Since there was no authentication on the face of this record, the Singareni Collieries Company Limited, according to the learned Standing Counsel, is justified in ignoring the subsequent Form-B registers maintained. The whole question centers around the procedure and fairness adopted by the 1st respondent in declaring the date of birth of the petitioner as 21.12.1950 through the communication dated 23/26.04.2010, based upon the findings of the Area Age Determination Committee, which met on 15.02.2010. Section 48 of the Mines Act, 1952 requires registers of persons employed in every mine to be compulsorily maintained. Sub-section (1) of Section 48 clearly spells out that for every mine, there shall be kept in the prescribed form and place a register of all persons employed in the mine showing in respect of each such person, the name of the employee, the name of his father/husband, as the case may be and such other particulars as may be necessary for the purpose of identification, the age and sex of the employee, the nature of employment whether aboveground or belowground, if aboveground, whether in opencast working or otherwise and the date of commencement of the employment, etcetera. The Mines Rules, 1955 have been framed by the Central Government exercising the power available to them under Section 58 of the Mines Act, 1952. Rule 77 prescribes that the register, which is required to be maintained in terms of Section 48 of the Mines Act, 1952 is to be maintained in Form-B. In Form-B, column 4 very appropriately dealt with the age and sex of the employee concerned. There is a greater significance attached by the statute- maker, in requiring every miner to maintain the particulars of the employees working in mines and prescribing the appropriate registers therefor. The information relating to the employees, their age, place of employment and other necessary particulars for quick identification of such employees is so very essential in case of any untoward incident or emergency. Therefore, the statute-maker has purposefully required the information relating to the age of the employee to be maintained compulsorily by the employer. When once the 1st respondent company has complied with the same, as it is bound to, and entered the age of the petitioner and his date of birth as 10.02.1953 and filed those registers, from time to time, it is wholly impermissible for the 1st respondent to turn around later on and seek to alter the date of birth of such employee. There is no power vested in any of the Mines Rules, which would enable corrections to be carried out in the entries in Form-B register. In the absence of any such power, the entries contained in Form-B register are required to be attached greater significance and importance. They cannot be altered by the employer/miner on its own. Sri Pattabhi Rama Rao, learned counsel would contend that there are various agreements that have been struck between the employees’ organizations on the one hand and the Singareni Collieries Company Limited on the other, one of them enables the Area Age Determination Committee to be set up for resolving age related disputes and this is a facility, which has been accorded for the benefit of the employees and a Committee has been constituted for determining the age of the employees, wherever any discrepancies in that regard are noticed and the Committee consists of a competent doctor and also two other members. Therefore, the findings recorded against the petitioner on 15.02.2010 by such a Committee should not be interdicted lightly. It is further contended that when there is no challenge mounted by the petitioner to the findings of this Committee, the petitioner shall not be permitted or allowed to challenge the consequential proceedings issued by the Singareni Collieries Company Limited. I am afraid, these contentions do not merit any consideration, for, a perusal of the certificate issued by the Area Age Determination Committee is ex facie absurd. It proposes to determine the age of the writ petitioner at the time of his initial employment. It is a fact that this Committee has examined the writ petitioner on 15.02.2010. One can understand such a Committee determining the age of the petitioner as at present moment. Instead of doing that, they have determined the age of the petitioner at the time of his initial engagement as on 08.01.1972 as 21 years. On what basis this Committee could go back in point of time by 38 years is inexplicable. Further, there is no credible material or basis upon which the age of the petitioner has been determined, such as examination of the X-rays of long bones, teeth or heart or hair by the said Committee. At any rate, I have not found any such details of examination recorded by the said Committee on the report finalized by them on 15.02.2010. Further, one can understand the ability of an expert doctor to determine, with a reasonable degree of assurance, the present age of any person. But, I have not heard or known of any principle of physiology by which one can determine the exact date of birth of a 55+ year old person. To my mind, therefore, the certificate dated 15.02.2010 is based on an element of speculation and guess, instead of any tenable principle of medical science. The fact that the writ petitioner has signed an undertaking contained in the said certificate that he will not challenge the findings of the said Committee is also insignificant in the sense that, when the writ petitioner has been provided an opportunity to appear before the said Committee, he has not been left with any choice to decline to sign at the dotted line thereon. Therefore, the fact that the writ petitioner has signed the said certificate or the fact that he has not challenged the findings of the said Committee are not liable to be attached any great legal significance for defeating his right. To my mind, the writ petitioner has for long been treated with his date of birth recorded as 10.02.1953, as is noticed from various certificates produced by him. At the fag end of his service, as much as an employee cannot seek to alter to his advantage his date of birth so also the employer. The petitioner is therefore, rightly entitled to claim that he should be continued in service till the end of February 2013. The Writ Petition deserves to be allowed and it is accordingly, allowed. The proceedings, dated 23/26.04.2010 as well as the declaration dated 26.09.2010 proposing to retire the writ petitioner on 31.12.2010 are set at naught. By virtue of the interim orders passed earlier in this Writ Petition on 31.12.2010, the petitioner is being continued in service. Therefore, without any let or hindrance, only on the basis that his date of birth has been re-determined as 21.12.1950, he shall not be retired from service before the end of February 2013. No costs. ---------------------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 14th September 2011 ksld