The High Court · 2025

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the rtrders dated 07.03.2025 in W.P. No.U613 ol 2024 and consequently issue direrctions for reinstatement. Counsel forAppellant: SRI KALLEPALLI THIRUMALA RAO bounsel forthe Respondents : SRI P.SRI HARSHA REDDY(SC FOR S|NGAREN| COLLTERTES CO LTD) The Court made the following JUDGMENT : - l1 THE HON'BLE TIIE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KT'MAR SINGH TIIE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHII]DDTN AI{D Writ Appeal No.391 of 2o25 JUDGMENT: Heard Mr.K.Thirumala Rao, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr.P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited appearing for the respondents.

2. The Iearned writ court has referred the appellant, who is the writ petitioner, to the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board on the question of determination of his age.

3. Writ petitioner approached the writ court with the following prayer: "...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Itlandamus .oi any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the Responclents in not considering his representations dated, 28/03/2A22 and, O3/O7 /2C23 and. issuing the impugned proceedings ReINo.SCES/SEC 12023 /6s5 dated tOl06l2023 and Ref.No.SCES/SEC/2O23/ 1299 dated 03/ 1l/2O23 and consequential proccedings Ref.No.SCES/SEC / 2023 / 1423 dated, 06 / 7212023 stipulating that on attaining the age. of 61 years on lO/12/2024 he has to retire on 2 \ Superannuation from the services of Singareni Collieries Educational Society in the afterno on of 3l/12/2Ct24, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently to issue directions to the respondents to accept the Date of Birth as brought out and maintained by the respondents in the S.C. High School Civil List, CMPF Records and Service Register and consequently continue the petitioner in service tjll he attains his age of 61 years on 08/0612032 and there by retire on attaining superannuation on 30106l2032 and to pass...'

4. In the earlier round of litigation in W.P.No.24454 of 2001, writ petitioner had prayed for regularization of his servlce as enlployee of Singareni Collieries Educational Society (SCttS). The learned writ court directed regularization of his services vide order dated 26.L2.2O17. He was subjected to Medical Board, which determined his date of birth on the basis of the Ration Card produced by him as 10.12. 1963. Writ petitioner was sought to be retired on the basis ,:f the entry made in his Service Book with effect from 31.12.2024. Therefore, he approached this Court again fc,r the aforesaid relief. The Iearned writ court took into corrsideration Clause (B) of Implementation Instruction No.76, which relates to review/determination of date of birth irr respect of existing emplol,ees and also the / variation in the date of birth recorded in Civil List/ Coal ,41 J Mines Provident Fund (CMPF) records and the Serrrice Book and therefore, referred the matter to the Age Determination Committee/ Medical Board for determination of his age. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the writ petitioner has preferred this appeal.

5. l,earned counsel for the appellant submits t]rat the learned writ court ought to have held that the date of birth of the appellant is O8.06.197 I as recorded in the Civil List/CMPF Records, Form PS-3, Form PS-4, instead of Form 'O' and Serrice Book relied upon by the respondents to treat his date of birth as 10.12.1963. It is submitted that the writ petitioner entered into the service as a contingent worker on 01.10.1993 in the SCES, where his date of birth is mentioned as 08.06.197 l, thereby, he should have superannuated with effect from 30.06.2032, instead of 3t.t2.2024.

6. Our attention has been drawn to the Civil List (page 55) prepared by the S.C.t{igh School, Sector-III, Incline Colony, Gadavarikhani, but this document does not contain the date on which it was prepared, though the date 4 of birth of the writ petitioner has been recorded as

08.06.1971.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn our attention to the declaration made by the employee ln CMPF, whir:h records the date of birth of the altpellant as

08.06.1971

8. However, this Form is again self-filled. Form PS-3 is attached to the declaration, which again is self-filled and contains the date of birth of the writ pe t-itioner AS

08.06.1971. Similar is the Nomination Form filled by the employee. Aclmittedly, he was not a matriculate. His Service Book (page 65) was opened on 10.05.20 18 and records his date of birth as 08.O6.1971 vide order dated

09.05.2018 (page 144).

9. The variation in the CMPF records ',vith the documents rr:lied upon by the employer i.e. ris Service Book and Form O, persuaded the learned r.r,rit court to refer hi: case for agg determination to the Age { Determination Committee/Medical Board as is provided ) under the Implementation Instruction No.76 which lays down the procedure for determination/verification age of employees and reads as under: 'B) Revlew/determination of date of birth in respect of existlng employees: i) a) In the case of the existing employees Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondar5r Certificate issued by t]re recognized Universities or Board or Middle Pass Certiflrcate issued by the Board of Dducation and/or Department of Public Instruction and admit cards issued by the aforesaid Bodies should be treated as correct provided tJ:ey were issued by the said Universities/ Boa.rds/ lnstitutions prior to the date of employment. b) Sirnilarly, Mining Sirdarship, Winding Engine or similar other statutory certificates where the Manager had to certi& t]:e date of birth will be treated as authentic. 4 Wherever there is no variation in records, such cases will not be reopened unless there is a vcry glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the Management. The management after being satisfied on the merits of the case will take appropriate action for correction through Age Determination Committee/ Medical Board. c) Age Determination Committce/ Medical Board for the above will be constituted by the Management. In the case of employees where. date of birth cannot be determined in accordance with the proccdurc mentioned in {B)(i)(a) or (B)(i)(b) above, the date of birth rccorded in the records of the company namely, Form B register, CMPir Records arrd 6 \ Identity Cards (untampered) will be treated as final. Provided that where there is a variation in the age recorded in thc records mentioned above, the matter will be referred to the age Determination Committee/Medical Board constitul.ed by the Management for determination of age."

10. The above conspectus of facts show that there are no documents contemporarieous with the entry of the writ petitioner into service in 1993 showing his date of birth recorded at that point of time. Other documents, such as CMPS Form and other forms annexed thereto are self-filled. The age determined by the Medical Officer at the time of regula,rization shows his date of birth as 1O.12.1963 on the basis of his ration card. Therefore, the learned writ court could not havc come to a conclusion as to which one of the two datcs rs his correct date of birth. In such circumstances, the procedure laid down by tht: Singareni Collieries C)ornpany Limited for determination/ verilication age of emplovees in Implementation Instruction No.76(8) was the correrlt course available to the writ courl-. 1 1. We therefore do not find any error in the impugned order. 7

12. Accordingly, the instant shall be no order as to costs. appeal is dismisged. There Miscellaneous applications pending, if arry, shall stand closed. / To //TRUE COPY//

1. One CC to SRI KALLEPALLI THIRUMALA RAO, 2. One CC to SRI P.SRI HARSHA REDDY (SC FOR CO LTD) Advocate IOPUC]

3. Two CD Copies :3 tv SO/. T. VIJAY KUMAR DEPUTY REG SECTION OFFICER \ I loPUcl ARENICOLLIERIES ,a'' ' l' -;tl i J) _) I I \ ((. z a .1.+ 310[T',){fli .SpArCt{ r-O HIGH COURT DATED:12lOBl2:,025 ORDER WA.No.391 of 1t-025 DISMISSING TI.IE W.A WITHOUT COSTS. (L $ \o 2)