THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 8477 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner joined the services of Singareni Collieries Company Limited on 03.04.1978. Since there was no proof of his date of birth, he was subjected to medical examination and it was certified that the petitioner is 26 years of age as on the date of recruitment. The same was entered in his service records and identity card. He stated that he was subjected to medical examination in the year 2004 and the age as entered in the service record was found to be correct. The respondents required the petitioner to appear before the Apex Medical Board on 19.11.2009. The petitioner complied with the directions. Stating that the Medical Board determined the age of the petitioner as 58 years as on 19.11.2009, the respondents seek to retire the petitioner with effect from 30.11.2011 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner submits that there is absolutely no basis for the respondents to subject him to further medical examination in the year 2009, much less any proceedings were issued. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. A discrepancy as to the age of the petitioner as entered, in the service register and identity card on the one , and the Coal Mines Provident Fund records on the other was noticed and that he was required to appear before the Medical Board in accordance with the terms of the settlement. However, at one place of the counter- affidavit, it is mentioned that the age of the petitioner that is mentioned in the B-Register cannot be altered. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner states that he was aged 24 years when he joined the service. That was not accepted, since there was no proof of his date of birth. He was subjected to medical examination and his age was certified as 26 years. That was entered in the B-Register as well as the identity card. There are several instances where the date of birth or age of an employee is mentioned differently in the forms submitted under the Coal Mines Provident Fund Act. Whenever the employees have made claim to remain in the service on the basis of age or date of birth mentioned in the Coal Mines Provident Fund records, the respondents have been flatly denying such facility by pleading that it is only the entry in the B-Register that would constitute the basis. In the instant case, however, a different stand is taken. In case, the respondents wanted to alter the date of birth of the petitioner, they ought to have stated the basis or reason. Without issuing any , much less specifying the reason, they made him to appear before the Apex Medical Board at the fag end of his career in the year 2009. Stating that the Board found him to be aged 58 years in 2009, they proposed to retire him in November, 2011. The stand taken by the respondents in their counter-affidavit is a bit curious. The following paragraph makes that clear: “It is submitted that as per the clause A-IV in implementation instruction No.76 of the Joint Bipartite Committee for Coal Industry (JBCCI) and as the petitioner failed to produce documentary or any other evidence at the time of joining the company, the petitioner’s age was determined by the Colliery Medical Officer as 26 years as on 02.03.1978 and the same was recorded in authentic service records such as Identity & Service Book, Form-B Register etc., and the same should be treated as correct date of birth/age and the same cannot be altered under any circumstances.” This exactly is the case of the petitioner. If his age is taken as 26 years as on 02.03.1978, he would attain the age of superannuation on 01.03.2012 and liable to retire from service with effect from 31.03.2012. However, in the next sentence, the respondents pleaded that: Basing on such age/date of birth, the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation i.e., 60 years, should be retired after working hours on 30.11.2011.” There is a clear inconsistency between the stands taken by the respondents. The basis for subjecting the petitioner to medical examination in the year 2009 is shaky and cannot be accepted. If the claim of an employee for alteration of date of birth cannot be entertained at the fag end of service, the same principle applies to an employer also. Hence, The writ petition is allowed and it is held that the petitioner is entitled to remain in service till 31.03.2012. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:20.09.2011. Note: Issue cc in three day. kdl