THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18250 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner joined the service of Singareni Collieries Company Limited in the year 1976 as Badli Filler. He is an illiterate and after medical examination, his age as in 1976 was assessed to be 22 years. In the service register and other records of the company, his date of birth was entered as 21.08.1954. The Superintendent of Mines, third respondent herein, sent a communication dated 24.07.2008 to the petitioner stating that he would obtain age of superannuation on 20.08.2008 and that he shall retire from the service of the company with effect from 01.09.2008. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. He contends that in all the service records as well as various registers maintained by the company, his date of birth is consistently shown as 21.08.1954 and even his date of retirement was shown to be falling on 01.09.2014 and there is absolutely no basis for issuance of impugned proceedings. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit and the fact that the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 21.08.1954 in the various records of the company, is not disputed. It is, however, stated that in the year 1999, Colliery Manager, SMG-1 Incline, addressed a letter dated 26.07.1999 to the effect that according to the B-Register, the date of birth of the petitioner is 20.08.1948 and that the impugned letter was issued on that basis. Heard Sri K.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. The date of birth entered in the service register and other records of the company constitutes the basis for retiring an employee, on attaining the age of superannuation. Even if an employee has an unimpeachable proof to the effect that the date of birth entered in the service records is at variance with the actual one, he cannot be conferred with the benefit. Similarly, if the respondents have any information contrary to their records, the same cannot be put against the employee, unless, the record is modified. In the instant case ever since the commencement of the service of the petitioner, his date of birth was consistently mentioned as 21.08.1954. In addition to that, as recently as on 19.05.2006, a statement was issued to the petitioner to the effect that his date of birth is 21.08.1954 and date of his retirement is 31.08.2014. The same is said to be in the context of referring the employee to the medical board. On 18.07.2007, the Corporate Medical Board issued a report. In that also the same particulars were repeated. The company maintains a website which would reflect the particulars of its employees. The information in relation to the petitioner downloaded from the website of the company as recently, as on 27.05.2008, discloses that his date of birth as 21.08.1954. The whole basis for issuing the impugned proceedings is communication dated 26.07.1999 said to have been sent by Colliery Manager, SMG-1 Incline. Even if that is true, it was incumbent upon the respondents to issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner requiring him to explain as to why his date of birth be not altered, that too by enclosing the relevant documents. For a period of one decade, nothing has been done in that direction and the petitioner was simply issued a slip informing that he would retire from service, almost six years much, before date of retirement shown in the records of the company itself. Viewed from any angle, the impugned proceedings dated 24.07.2008 cannot be sustained in law. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 24.07.2008 issued by the third respondent are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 24th June, 2010 GHN