The Vice Chairman & Managing Direcotr, Hyderabad v. V.Kadirappa

Judgment

(Per G. Rohini, J) These two appeals are preferred by the A.P. Mineral Development Corporation Limited against the common order dated

17.10.2011 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.25814 and 25831 of 2011 respectively. We have heard the learned Advocate General appearing for the

appellants and Sri G.Jagadishwar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent in both the appeals (writ petitioners). As could be seen from the material available on record, the writ petitioners joined the service of the A.P. Mineral Development Corporation Limited (for short, ‘the Corporation’) as daily wage workers in the year 1978 and 1974 respectively. According to them their dates of birth were entered in the service record as 05.06.1960 and

01.06.1956 respectively. Alleging that their dates of birth were altered by the Corporation unilaterally as 01.07.1953 in the service record and on the basis of the same, the Corporation had proposed to retire them with effect from 30.09.2011, they filed W.P.Nos.25814 and 25813 of

2011. In both the writ petitions, the proceedings of the Corporation dated 19.08.2011 whereunder it was proposed to retire the writ petitioners with effect from 30.09.2011 were sought to be declared as arbitrary and illegal. Having found that no specific proof was available about the dates of birth of the writ petitioners, this Court passed an interim order dated 21.09.2011 directing that the Superintendent, Kurnool Area Hospital, shall arrange for examination of the writ petitioners on

10.10.2011 to find out the approximate age by applying the relevant parameters. Accordingly, the Superintendent, Kurnul Area Hospital constituted a Medical Board consisting of Doctors from the fields of Plastic Surgery, General Surgery, Medicine, Radiology and Dental Surgery and the writ petitioners were subjected to tests in the corresponding fields. On the basis of the test reports, though the Medical Board observed that it was difficult to find out their exact age, it was opined that they were in the age group of 50 to 60 years and they can be treated as aged about 55 years as on the date of their examination. The Medical Board had also ruled out the version of the Corporation that the writ petitioners were aged more than 58 years. On the basis of the said findings of the Medical Board, the writ petitions were allowed by a learned single Judge, by a common order dated

17.10.2011 directing the Corporation to treat the writ petitioners as aged 55 years as on 13.10.2011 and consequently holding that they should be liable to be retired on attaining the age of superannuation on the basis of the said date. The said order is assailed in these writ appeals filed by the Corporation. It is contended by the learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants that in the light of the well settled principle of law that the change of date of birth of an employee at the fag end of the service is impermissible, the learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the writ petitions. In support of the said submission, the learned Advocate General relied upon G.M. BHARAT COCKING COAL LIMITED v. SHIB KUMAR DUSHAD [1] and STATE OF M.P. v. PREMLAL SHRIVAS [2] . It is also contended that the learned Single Judge ought to have dismissed the writ petitions in limine directing the writ petitioners to approach the Labour Court since disputed questions of fact are involved. At the outset, it is to be pointed out that the age and date of birth were initially entered in the Form-B register maintained by the Corporation as 30 years and 01.06.1956 in respect of the petitioner in W.P.No.25831 of 2011 and respect of the petitioner W.P.No.25814 of 2011 it was mentioned as 5.6.1960. It is evident from the record placed before this Court that the said dates of birth initially entered the Form-B register were subsequently altered as

01.07.1951 and 1.10.1953 respectively. According to the writ petitioners, no notice was issued to them before altering the date of birth in the Form-B register. Both the petitioners relied upon the Transfer Certificates issued by the Schools where they had studied upto V-standard to substantiate their dates of birth as 5.6.1960 and

1.6.1956 respectively. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to us that it is not a case where the writ petitioners sought change of dates of birth at the fag end of service, but their grievance was with regard to alteration of their date of birth unilaterally by the employer. Therefore, the objection raised on behalf of the Corporation as maintainability of the writ petitions relying upon SHIB KUMAR DUSHAD’S case (1 supra) and PREMLAL SHRIVAS case (2 supra) cannot be accepted. As noticed above, the writ petitioners were subjected to medical test for determination of their age and on the basis of the same, the Medical Board consisting of experts opined that the writ petitioners can be treated as aged about 55 years. Having been satisfied as to the authenticity of the report of the Medical Board consisting of experts in the respective fields, the learned single Judge had rightly allowed the writ petitions with a direction to treat the writ petitioners as aged 55 years as on 13.10.2011 i.e. the date on which they were subjected to medical test. Having failed to challenge the interim order passed by this Court to constitute a Medical Board and to subject the writ petitioners to medical test for determination of their age, it is not open to the Corporation now to contend that the writ petitions were disposed of without giving them an opportunity to file their counters. At any rate, we do not find any justifiable reason to hold that the procedure adopted by the learned Single Judge in relying upon the report of the Medical Board for determination of the age of the petitioners is erroneous. For the aforesaid reasons, the common order under appeal which is based on the opinion of the expert body cannot be said to be erroneous or illegal warranting interference by us. Hence, both the Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Appeals shall stand closed. G. Rohini,J __________________ ______________________ C.Praveen Kumar,J Date: 20.11.2012 KLP/GBS [1] [2] (2000) 8 SCC 696 (2011) 9 SCC 664