THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 1097 OF 2008 Dt: 25th March 2008 Between: Vemula Narsaiah …Petitioner and The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Rep.by its Chief General Manager, Ramagundam Area-1, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District & others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 1097 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner joined the Singareni Collieries on 17.4.1978, as Filling Trammer. Since he is an illiterate and did not possess any proof about his date of birth, his age was mentioned, duly following the procedure. According to the petitioner, the age was mentioned as 23 years, as on 17.4.1978, but respondents treated it as 30 years, as on that date. On behalf of the petitioner, a representation was made through the workers union on 18.10.2007, to take necessary steps to resolve the controversy. The respondents addressed letter, dated 27.12.2007, informing the petitioner that he will retire from service, with effect from 31.3.2008. Petitioner challenges the same. Petitioner contends that in the Identity Card issued to the petitioner, the age was mentioned as 23 years as on 17.4.1978 and that the same is reflected in the ‘B’ Register. Respondents filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that entry in the ‘B’ Register was tampered, and according to certain records, the age of the petitioner, as on 17.4.1978, is 30 years. Heard Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Nandigama Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner filed several documents, in support of his contention. In the Identity Card, said to have been issued at a time when he entered the service, his age is mentioned as 23 years. In the extract of B-Register filed by the petitioner, the same age is mentioned. Respondents have also filed a copy of that extract, which reflects the same interpolation. Even assuming that there is some discrepancy about the entry relating to the age of the petitioner, in several records, the respondents are under obligation to follow the procedure, to resolve the same. According to the guidelines and regulations framed by the respondents, in matters of this nature, the cases are to be referred to Area Age Determination Committee. A detailed procedure to be followed in such matters is also prescribed. There is no reason why the said procedure be not followed in the case of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the communication, dated 27.12.2007. The respondents are directed to refer the case of the petitioner to Area Age Determination Committee, which in turn, shall follow the prescribed procedure and render its opinion. The continuance, or otherwise of the petitioner in service, would depend upon the outcome of the exercise to be undertaken by the said Committee. The petitioner shall cooperate with the steps to be taken by the respondents. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ 25th March 2008 PAN