THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16381 OF 2010 ORDER: Petitioner joined the service of Singareni Collieries on 27-03- 1978. Since he did not produce any written proof as to his age, he was subjected to medical examination. The medical examiners certified him to be of 25 years as on that date. Accordingly, his date of birth was mentioned as 02-12-1950. The same was reflected in the B Register, Service Register etc. Petitioner was issued intimation, dated 02-12-2009, stating that he attains the age of superannuation i.e., 60 years as on 08-12-2010 and that he would retire from the service of the Company with effect from 31-12-2010. 2. Petitioner submitted his representation, dated 07-06-2010, to the respondents stating that his actual date of birth is 02-06-1956 and in support of the same, he enclosed a transfer certificate issued by a private High School. His grievance is that the respondents are not considering his case and are proposing to retire him from the service with effect from 31-12-2010. 3. Respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that the age of the petitioner was determined on medical examination and till the intimation about his retirement was given, he did not raise any objection. It is stated the transfer certificate obtained by the petitioner does not warrant any consideration, since it was obtained, for the first time, after the notice of retirement was issued. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. There are several instances where the Company has undertaken modification of date of birth of an employee, if adequate proof is provided. Detailed guidelines are stipulated for this purpose. In case, the discrepancy is brought to the notice, much in advance, the cases are dealt with by the Area Age Determination Committee, which in turn, shall, subject the employee to medical examination. All that would be possible, if only a genuine discrepancy is pointed out. The petitioner did not feel the necessity of seeking alternation of his date of birth that was entered in the service record. Only at the fag end of his service, that too, after the respondents issued retirement notice, the petitioner came forward with an application. The only basis for him to seek alternation of date of birth is, a transfer certificate. 6. A perusal of the transfer certificate discloses that the application for it was made, for the first time, on 16-07-2009 and it was issued on 25-10-2009. Petitioner is said to have left the Institution on 28-06-1973. If that were be so, it is just un-understandable as to why he did not produce the same either when he joined the service or within few years thereafter, or during the length of his service, spread over more than three decades. The transfer certificate is silent as to the class, in which the petitioner joined. There is any amount of doubt as to the very existence of the School at the relevant pint of time. Time and again, the Supreme Court held that the request for alteration of date of birth, made at the fag end of service, cannot be entertained. 7. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J December 20, 2010. KTL