IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1576 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 11/04/2005 in WP NO : 23565 OF 2004 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Kontnam Rajaiah S/o Pochamallu RK 5 incline, Srirampur, Adilabad District ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., rep by General Manager, Srirampur area, Adilabad District 2 The Superintendent of MInes, RK 5 incline, Srirampur Area, Singarani Collieries Co. Ltd., Srirampur, Adilabad District .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:SMT.S.A.V.RATNAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by an order dated 11-4-2005 passed in W.P.No. 23565 of 2004, this appeal has been filed by the original petitioner. The question involved in this appeal is with regard to the date of birth of the appellant. The appellant was appointed as a Casual Mazdoor/Coal cutter in 1974 by the 1st respondent. As the appellant-petitioner was not educated and was not having any evidence to show his date of birth, he was examined by a Doctor on 26-12-1974. The Doctor opined that he was 30 years old as on that date and accordingly in the service record it was recorded that at the time of his appointment, the appellant was 30 years old. Moreover, even from the driving licence issued to the appellant, it appears that his date of birth was 1st July, 1944. Accordingly the appellant was made to retire in 2004. But at that time he made a grievance that in fact he was 25 years old when he was appointed. The case put forward by the appellant before the respondent- employer was not supported by any document except an identity card, which has been issued by the employer. After considering the relevant facts, the learned single Judge has rejected the petition and being aggrieved by the order of rejection, this appeal has been filed. We have heard the learned Advocates and have also gone through the material papers, which had been placed before the learned single Judge. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant was 25 years old at the time when he was appointed as a Casual Mazdoor/Coal cutter. The record clearly reveals that on 26-12-1974 when he was examined by the Doctor, his age was recorded as 30 years and the said fact was duly recorded in the service record. Moreover, as stated hereinabove, even the driving licence shows that his date birth was 1st July, 1944. In the aforestated circumstances, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the learned single Judge committed any error while rejecting the petition. There is nothing to show that the appellant was 25 years old at the time when he was appointed. In view of the said fact, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. The appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. _____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ __________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 10th December, 2008. GRR