IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 13845 of 2008 Between: Kotte Rajam,(Ec No.2263890), S/o. Lingaiah, Shale Picking Mazdoor,SRP/CSP, Srirampur, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Rep by its Chairman & Managing Director, Kothagudem, Khammam District. 2 The General Manager, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Srirampur, Adilabad District. 3 The Divisional Engineer, Coal Screening Plant, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Srirampur, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to t issue a writ or order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, i. declare the action of the respondents in retraining the petitioner from performing his duties w.e.f. 12-6-2006 and not finalizing his VRS application as illegal and arbitrary ii. consequently direct the respondents to accept petitioner's VRS application and pay all the benefits or in the alternative retain him in service till 30-4-2001 i.e., till the date of his superannuation. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner joined the service of Singareni Collieries Company Limited on 28.05.1976 as Badili Filler. Since he was an illiterate, he was subjected to medical examination in the context of assessment of his age. In all his service records, such as, B-Register, Service Book and Identity Card, it was mentioned that his age is 25 years, as on 28.05.1976. On that basis, the petitioner is entitled to remain in service up to 27.05.2011. The petitioner submitted an application under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (V.R.S.). While processing it, the respondents asked the petitioner to stop coming to the work. According to them, the medical examination report prepared in the year 1976 discloses that his age is 28 years and by mistake, it was mentioned in various service records as 25 years. The respondents also sought to subject the petitioner to medical examination for reassessment of the age. This writ petition is filed assailing the action of the respondents in restraining the petitioner from performing his duties with effect from 12.06.2006 and for other consequential benefits. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating that in the medical examination report prepared in the year 1976, the age of the petitioner was mentioned as 28 years, whereas by mistake, it was mentioned in all other records as 25 years. It is also their case that when the petitioner was sought to be referred to further medical examination by the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board in terms of Circular, dated 01.08.1988, he refused to undergo it. According to them, the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation, and in that view of the matter, he was not permitted to the duties. Heard Sri K.Vasudeva Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is a matter of record that the age of the petitioner, as on the date of entry into service i.e. 28.05.1976, is mentioned in the Service Book, B-Register and Identity Board as 25 years. Those three documents are treated as material, in the context of determining the date of retirement of the employee. It was nearly 32 years later that the respondents sought to doubt the correctness of the age of the petitioner, that too, when he submitted an application for voluntary retirement. The arbitrariness on the part of the respondents is evident from the fact that they have chosen to restrain the petitioner from attending the duties, even without passing any formal orders of retirement or correction of date of birth. Added to that, an attempt was made to refer the case of the petitioner to the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board. A perusal of the Circular, dated 01.08.1988, discloses that such a reference can be made only when any discrepancy is noticed in the entries made in Form ‘B’ Register, CMPF records and Identity Card. Admittedly, there is no inconsistency in the entries in those registers in respect of the petitioner. Time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the date of birth of an employee cannot be altered at the fag end of the service. The said observation operates not only against the attempts made by the employees, but also those made by the employers. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed, as prayed for and the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner till he attains the age of superannuation according to the age mentioned in the service records or to extend the benefit of V.R.S. to him, in accordance with the relevant Circular. The respondents shall pay salary to the petitioner, for the period, during which he was prevented from attending the work. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:21.07.2008 Note: L.R. copy to be marked. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}