THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 21012 of 2010 O R D E R: The writ petitioner, who is employed with the Singareni Collieries Company Limited, a public sector undertaking, seeks a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to retire him from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2010, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, he seeks for a direction to the respondents to continue him in the service up to 31.08.2015 with all consequential benefits. It is submitted that the writ petitioner was appointed initially as a Badli Filler on 21.08.1978. He was subsequently promoted as a Coal Filler and he is presently working as an Assistant Chainman in the Survey Department of the Singareni Collieries Company Limited. The case of the writ petitioner was that even prior to joining the service of the Singareni Collieries Company Limited, he studied up to 10th class (SSC) and that as per the school leaving certificate, his date of birth was recorded as 07.11.1955 and therefore, on that basis, the writ petitioner could not have been sought to be retired from service of the Singareni Collieries Company Limited on 31.08.2010. Heard Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Singareni Collieries Company Limited. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that the 1st respondent Company has noticed the fact that the writ petitioner has studied up to 10th class (SSC) and in his school record, his date of birth was noted as 07.11.1955 and hence, they ought to have regulated the age of superannuation accordingly. Instead, the respondents have been illegally seeking to retire the writ petitioner on 31.08.2010 by which time, he would not have even completed 55 years of age. In support of the case, three documents, Exs.P1, P2 and P3 have been filed along with the Writ Petition. Ex.P1 is a notice dated 17/20.07.2009 issued by the Colliery Manager of the Singareni Collieries Company Limited informing the writ petitioner that he will be attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years as on 31.08.2010 and therefore, he will retire from service of the company as per Clause 4 of the Age of Retirement Rules on 31.08.2010. Ex.P2 is a communication sent up to the writ petitioner by D.G.M.(Operations) of the Singareni Collieries Company Limited on 06.06.2010 declining to re-examine the issue of fixation of his age. It will be appropriate to notice from the contents of Ex.P2 that the writ petitioner appears to have submitted a representation on 30.10.2006 to the Singareni Collieries Company Limited, seeking the company to refer him to a Committee for determining his correct age. Entertaining this representation/request of the writ petitioner, the Age Determining Committee of the area has met on 21.03.2007 and carried on the necessary exercise. The writ petitioner appears to have participated there at the meeting. It is, therefore, recorded in the minutes of the said meeting that the date of birth of the writ petitioner, as recorded in the company’s service records namely 21.08.1950, is correct and it does not require any correction. As a token of acceptance of these findings, the writ petitioner also appears to have signed the minutes of the proceedings on that day. Therefore, after three years, when the writ petitioner again submitted a similar request/representation on 31.05.2010, the same was declined to be complied with by the DGM through his communication dated 06.06.2010, Ex.P2. Ex.P3 is the notice published on 01.07.2010, which is issued in furtherance to the earlier notice dated 20.07.2009, intimating that the service of the writ petitioner will draw to a close on 31.08.2010 and requiring him to hand over the company’s material and also to vacate the quarters under his occupation and to secure the necessary clearance certificate in that regard. From an analysis of the above Exs.P1 to P3, it emerges that at the time when the writ petitioner was recruited as a Badli Filler in 1978, the Singareni Collieries Company Limited has noted his date of birth as 21.08.1950. Obviously, the writ petitioner was aware of this fact and hence, he solicited a re-consideration on 30.10.2006 and as per the practice and policy of the 1st respondent, meeting of the Age Determination Committee of the area has been convened on 21.03.2007, whereat the writ petitioner has participated. If the findings of this Committee are known to the writ petitioner, he cannot seek to re- agitate the correctness or otherwise of such findings after lapse of three years time. If, on the other hand, the writ petitioner is not aware of the contents of the report of the Committee, which met on 21.03.2007, he ought to have taken steps promptly thereafter to be apprised of the findings of the said Committee. He cannot seek to reopen that issue after more than 3 years. Therefore, when the writ petitioner attempted to reopen the issue by submitting another request/representation on 31.05.2010, for re-determination of his age by the Age Determination Committee, such a request has been rightly turned down on 06.06.2010. I do not find any illegality in the action of the respondents in this regard. When once an employee enters into employment, he is under an obligation to disclose his date of birth. Based on the said information, the terms of contract of employment would be settled. If a policy put in place by the employer exists for re-consideration of any such issue, the same is liable to be re-examined. Hence, the request made by the writ petitioner on 30.10.2006 was referred for consideration by the Age Determination Committee of the area on 21.03.2007. The findings of the said Committee confirmed the entry relating to the date of birth of the writ petitioner in the service records maintained by the company namely 21.08.1950 as correct. In view of these findings, there is nothing illegal in the action of the respondent company in proposing to retire the petitioner from service on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years, on 31.08.2010, inasmuch as, he would have attained the age of 60 years by 21.08.2010. All such employees, who attain the age of superannuation during the middle of any particular month, will be retired at the end of the said month, so that they can earn the wages for the entire month, instead of for a truncated period. I, therefore, do not find any illegality in the action of the respondents. It will be appropriate, at this stage, to deal with the contention canvassed by Sri Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the Singareni Collieries Company Limited is bound in law and in principle by the entries contained in the school records, inasmuch as the writ petitioner has studied up to 10th class (SSC) even prior to his entering into the service of the Company and they cannot, therefore, decline to correct their service records and bring them in tune with the entries contained in the school record. I am afraid that this contention is too farfetched a contention. If an employee has attended to school and thus had the advantage of formal education, it is for him to produce the necessary certificate/material to vouch for his correct date of birth, based on which, the necessary entries would be made in the employment records, which are liable to be maintained by every public sector undertaking. In the absence of production of any such formal certificate/material, alternative method of determining the age of the employee will be resorted to. Since the material enclosed to this Writ Petition does not disclose the fact that the writ petitioner has produced his school certificates at the time of his joining the service of the 1st respondent Company, I cannot find fault with the action of the respondents in not recording or regulating or correcting their records of service to bring them in conformity or in tune with the entries contained in his school records, subsequently. Further, it will be appropriate to notice that in the body of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and in particular, in paragraphs 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7, the writ petitioner kept on asserting that his date of birth as per his school record is 07.11.1955, but however, in paragraph 12, he prays for consequential directions to be issued to the 1st respondent to continue him in service up to 31.08.2015, by which date he would have attained the age of superannuation of 60 years. I find that the averments and the prayer are at divergence with each other. If the writ petitioner’s correct date of birth is 07.11.1955, he would have attained the age of superannuation of 60 years as of 06.11.2015 and consequently, he would have retired from service of the 1st respondent company only on 30.11.2015. Hence, he could not have prayed to be retired on 31.08.2015, on attaining 60 years of age. Even on this count, therefore, I am not convinced about the genuineness of the claim of the writ petitioner. The claims relating to correctness of the date of birth in the entries maintained by the employers, made towards the end of the tenure of employment, are liable to be viewed with greater amounts of suspicion. Employees, who enter into service of an organization long years ago, are not liable to lie low and agitate about their rights after lapse of long periods and suddenly wake up towards the end of their tenure and rake up the factually controversial issues relating to the entries contained in the records relating to their date of birth and solicit for correction of such entries. Every employer is bound to regulate their affairs in tune with a plan of action and implement the same. Manpower requirement will be planned taking these aspects into account. Therefore, no employee is liable to agitate about the errors contained in the records particularly relating to his/her date of birth towards the fag end of his/her service and thus seek to upset the planning process of the employer. Therefore, the present Writ Petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 24th August 2010 ksld