IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2014 of 2007 Between: Smt. Ch. Laxmi, W/o. Late Nagamallu, Purchase Dept. PG-III, S.C.C. Ltd. Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Chairman and Managing Director, SCCo. Ltd. Singareni Bhavan, Lakidakapool, Hyderabad. 2 Chief General Manager (personal and Admn), SCCo Ltd. Kothagudem, Khammam District. 3 Chief General Manager-RG-III, SCCo Ltd. Godavaikhani, Karimnagar 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 issue any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the Respondents for not considering to ratification of the petitioner age as 25 years instead of 35 year at the time of appointment i.e. 28-3-1982 in service record of the petitioner based on the documents submitted i.e. Date of birth certificate issued by Competent authority, age certificate issued by medical officer, date of birth certificates of her children and her late husband service record as his age was as 20 years as on 1970, by respondents is illegal, arbitrary unjust besides violations of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to consider and ratification of petitioner age as 25 years instead of 35 years as on 28-3-1982 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.ASHVINI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR.NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO The Court made the following ORDER: The husband of the petitioner was employed as a General Mazdoor in Singareni Collieries in the year 1970. He died in the year 1982. Thereupon, the petitioner was appointed as a General Mazdoor on compassionate grounds on 03.03.1982. She was given an intimation on 13.03.2006 stating that she has attained the age of superannuation on 02.03.2007 and she would retire from service of the company on 31.03.2007. Not being satisfied with that, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents. Acting on the same, the respondents referred the case of the petitioner to Apex Medical Board. On examination of the petitioner and after following the prescribed procedure, the Medical Board found that the age of the petitioner, as on 05.04.2006, is 58 years. Thereby, the petitioner got the benefit of about one year and one month. Not being satisfied with the same, the petitioner had approached this Court. Placing reliance upon Form-O, said to have been issued by the Examining Authority, the petitioner states that her age as on 03.03.1982 was 25 years and she is entitled to continue in service up to 2017. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegation of the petitioner. It is stated that on the date of entry into service itself, her age was assessed as 35 years by the Medical Officer, since there did not exist any recorded proof of date of birth and that Form-O relied upon by the petitioner is a fabricated document. Heard Sri J.Ashwin Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The appointment of the petitioner in the year 1982 was on compassionate grounds. She did not produce any proof about her age. On a rough assessment, it was entered as 35 years as on 03.03.1982. It is a matter of record that the age of the husband of the petitioner was mentioned as 20 years in the year 1970. If that is taken as standard, he would be of 32 years by 1982. It may look somewhat odd that the age of the petitioner in the year 1982 was 35 years, whereas that of her husband is 32 years. Much, however, would depend upon the accuracy of the age of the husband of the petitioner as entered in service register. It may be observed that the said age was also entered on the basis of rough assessment and not on the basis of any certificate. The learned Standing Counsel has produced the service record of the petitioner. In the Identify and Service Card issued to the petitioner at the time of entry into service, her age was mentioned as 35 years. In the subsequent years, she submitted nomination forms in Form PS-3 and 4. The family was shown as comprising mother, daughter and son of the petitioner. The date of birth of the son was shown as 14.05.1970. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is anything abnormal in the age of the petitioner being shown as 35 years as on 1982. Further, in all the basic records, the age was mentioned as 35 years and the Medical Board did not find any inconsistency. The only basis for their examining the petitioner was her assertion about her age, which, in turn, is not based on any recorded proof. The Medical Board had given the benefit of one year and one month to the petitioner. Once the age of an employee was certified by a Medical Board, the Court has hardly any role to play. In G.M., BHARAT COKING COAL LTD., v SHIB KUMAR DUSHAD[1], the Supreme Court held that the Courts must be slow to intervene in the matters relating to correction of dates of birth, particularly when the claims are made at the fag end of the service. Further, when an expert body had rendered its opinion, the Court cannot sit as appellate authority over it. This Court does not find any basis to grant the relief to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ 09.04.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} [1] (2000) 8 SCC 696