Md. Nizamuddin v. 1. The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd

counsel for the Respondents : SRI P.SRI HARSHA REDDY (SC FOR STNGARENI COLLTERIES CO.LTD) The Court rrrade the following ORDER 0 .o HON'BLE SRI JUSflCE NAGESH BHEIMAPAKA trIRIT PEf,ITIC,N NO. 1981? OF 2016 o DER: t.t Petitioner,s case is that he was initially appointed as t TraineeGeneralMazdooratPK-lInclineon|7-07_1978and promoted from time to time up to the post of Welder in 1987' HestudieduptoTsclassand.alsocompletedlTl(Welder)in |glsitselfandheproducedTransferCertifrcateissuedbythe Head Master & correspondent, s,. Joseph High School, Rudrampur, Kothagudem, and as per the National Trade Certificate issued by the Ministr5r 'of ['a'bour' Government of India, his date of birth is O5-11-1958' Cdnsequently' in all of his service records, such as, Form-B register' Form-A (CMPF Ledger Card) and [dentitY Card, date of birth was entered AS 05-1 1-1958. It is stated, petitioner is entitled to be continued in 1.1. service till 30-11-2O18, till he attains 60' However' recently' the lstrespondentCompanypublishedt]reservicedetailsofallthe employees working in the area' wherein his age was described as22yearsasonl4-(r.-Lg78'whichisnotonlyincorrectbut alsocontrarytotherecords.Hesubmittedrepresentationdated 21-o1-2ol5tocontinuehiminserviceupto3o-11-2o|8, ltowever,proceedingdatecl06-06-2015wasissuedbythe3.d Gs 4'- t i I I I :i 1 I I ! ! I I I i t t 2 t,'- f', respondent to retire him from service with effect from 0l-0'7-2016. Then, he fired writ petition No.2 6sr6 of 2or5 wher,-'in respondents were directed to conduct fresh medical examination for assessment of age. 1'3' consequently, petitioner appeared before the Main Hospital, Kothagudem on z3-tr-2o15, whereat, a[ the tests were conducted by the ward boys and he was asked to be presertt before the Apex Medical Board on 3O-f l-2OlS. All the doctors and even the members of the Apex Medical Board were : with a predetermined notion to hord his age as 59 years as on 3o-11-2or5. precisely for this reason, no proper medical tests were conducted. l-4- petitioner relied on the judgment of the Honble Apex C'ourt in Bhar,,t coktng coat Ltd.. a. crt toto, Brrsa rrranut;t, wherein it has been herd that schoor record should be given p'ecedence over the medical examinations conducted by the Mecticar Board. It is stated, the action of respondents in determi'ing his age as s9 years as on 3o-rl-2or5 thereby deprivinl3 29 months of service is wholy unjustifiable and proceedi:gs dated rg-r2-2o15 issued by the gra respondent is liable to be set aside. It is therefore, prayed to direct respondents to continue petitioner in service up to 3o-rr_2org s 2014 Law Suit (SC) .i44 I o 0: 3 dulygrantingallotherconsequentialarrdattendantbenefitsor inthealternativedirectrespondentstoreferhiscaseto OsmaniaGovernmentHbspital,Hyderabad'forassessmentof age afresh

2. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent - Singareni Collieries Company Limited' it is stated' as petitioner did not produce any evidence in proof of his date of birthatthetimeofappointment,hewasdirectedtolnitial Medical Examination for assessing his age where his date of birth was assessed by the colliery medical oflicer as 22 years as on 14.06. lg78- Pursuant to the samt' his date of birth was recorded in all the statutory records of Respondent company as

14.06.1956. It is stated, as per Implementation Instruction 2.1. No.76 of the Joint Bipartite csr&rnjttee for coal Industry (JBCCI),theprocedureindetermination.oftheage/dateofbirth atthetimeofappointmentinrespectofNon-matriculatesbut educatedwhohavepursuedstud'iesinarecognizededucational institution,thedateofbirthrecordedintheSchooll.raving CertificateshallbetreatedaScolrectdateofbirthandtheSame wilt not be altered under any circumstances' In case of illiterate, the date of birth would be determined by the colliery Medical Officer keeping in view any documentarJr 1nd G -ra- -'"4 t t t t1 I t I 4 v o relevemt evidence as produced by the appointee. Date of birth as determined shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances.

2.2. It is stated, in case of the existing employees, Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the recognized Universities or Board or Middle Pass Certificate issued by the Board of Education and/or Departrr.rcnt of Public Instruction and admit cards issued by the aforesaid Bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by tJlc said Universities / Boards /institutions prior to the date of employment. Wherever there is no variation in records, such cases will not be reopened unless there is a very glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the Management. The rrranagement after being satisfied on the merits of the case will te&e appropriate action for correction Committee/Medical Board. through Age Determination. Age Determination Comrrrittee/Medical Board for the above will be constituted by the M;enagement. In the case o[ employees where date of birth cannol be determined in accordance with the procedure menti<lned above, the date of birth recorded in the records of the company, namely, Form B register, CMPF Records and ldentity Cards (untampered) will be treated as linal. Provided that where there is a variation in the age recorded in the records mentioned 1(l @ 5 above, the matter will be referred to the age Determination committee/Medical Board constituted by the Management for determinationofage.Fordeterminationofth.eage,-the CommitteeMedicalBoardreferredtoabovemayconsiderthe evidences available with the Cotliery management and/or adduced before it by the employee concerned' Medicat Bgard constitutedfordeterminationofagewitlberequiredtoassess the age in accordance with the requirement of' 'tMedical Jurisprudence.,andtheMedicalBoardwitlasfaraspossible indicate the accurate age assessed and not approx{rl-atefY' It is stated' petrtiq4e'It, dd not su-bmit anJ 2.g. documentary proof of age/date of birth at the time of his appointment in the Respondent Company' the then Go1liery Medicat officer after examining had assessed the a$e of petitioneras22yearsaSon14.06.LgTsinthelnitialMedical Examination (lME) Form' and the age as assessed above is authentic and the same was accepted by petitioner' The age of petitioner was assessed by the colliery mgdical officer at the timeofhisappointmentitselftowhichthePetitioneraccepted and signed the same' It is submitted that the averments of the petitionerthatinallhisservicerecords'tlredateofbirthwas entered as O5-1f -1958 is not true and correct' t t t : ,t ,: l. 1,,ti I;i I t t 6 t)

2.4. It is also stated, Respondent Company uide letter datecl O6.06.2Of 5 informed petitioner that his date of birth was recor,ded as 14.O6.1956 in the company records, as such, he woukl retire from the services of the Company w.e.f. O1.O7'.2OL6. Challenging the same, petitioner filed Writ petition No. it6576 of 2Ol5 which was disposed of in terms of the comrrron order in Writ Petition No. 33343 of 2012. In compliance with t.Le above order, Respondent company referred petiti<lner for age assessment to Apex Medical Board consisting of panel of doctors comprising of occupational health specialist, Dental Surgeon, Radiologist, Ophthalmologist, ENT Surgeon and Orthopedic Sungeon. The Committee explained the petitioner regarding the Rules Regulations governing the consti.hrtion of Apex Medical Board including the procedure to deternrine trre Age as per JBCCI guidelines. In accordance with the above guidelines, the service records of petitioner containing his ag:/date of birth and also the Medical Examination linding of the Panel of Doctor were placed before the Apex Medical Board. It is stated that after considering the petitioner's own statement, age assessed by the Panel of Doctors comprising of occupational Health specialist, Dental surgeon, Radiologist, .\ \- ophtheilmologist, ENT surgeon and orthopedic surgeon and taking into consideration of the age recorded in the above o ',o 7 Company's records, the Apex Medical Board assessed tl:e age of the petitioner ds above 59 years as on 30'11'2015 as buch *"' date of birth of the petitioner in the company records i'e' 22 years as on 14'O' Lg78 was confirmed and the same wa's , communicatedtopetitioneruid.e|etterdated11.01.2016which was dulY acknowledged bY him'

2.5. It is reiterated that the petitioner did not submit anydocumentaryproofofhisageldateofbirthatt}retime.ofhis appointment m the Respondent Company' the then Colliery Medicalofficerafterexamininghadassessedtheageofthe petitioneras22yearsaSon14.06.LgTsinthelnitialMedlcal Examination (tME) Form' and the age as assessed above is authentic and the same was accepted by the petitioner' Hence' itissubmittedthattheagesoassessedbyt}rethenColli.ery Medical Officer in the tME Form as 22 years as orl 14'O6'L978 arrdthesamewasconvertedashisdateofbirthas14.o6.1956 and incorporated the same ageldate of birth in the Service RecordsofthepetitionermaintainedbytheRespondent Company.ttisstatedthatpetitionerretiredfromtheseryicesof Respondent Company on Ol'O7 '2016 and alt his terminal benefits were Paid'

3. Petitioner filed reply reiterating the averments in tlte writ aflidavit and denYing the averments in the counter' I t t I I 8 o

4. Heard Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, learned. counsel for petitioner as well as sri P. srihasha Reddy, learned Standing counsel for respondent collieries Limited and perused the reconl.

5. It is to be seen that petitioner already filed writ Petition No. 26576 of 2015 challengrng the proceedings dated

06.06.2015 issued by the 3.d respondent which, according to him, sought to retire him, prematurely. The said writ petition was clisposed of by order dated 31.0g.2o1s in terms of the common order in writ petition No. 33343 0f 2012. tt was directed in the said writ petitibn that *All I need to ad.d i^s tlut tle pefitisners whreueir is'on tlrc rolls of tle first respond.ent- compang as of tod.ag, i.e. 31.03.2015 and" who has been proposed. to be retited eiller in ttw past or in the nearest fuare shnll be subjected to medical examination on specifted d.ates. Each gf the petitioners wifl be giuen t?e intimation of th.e d"ate of tleir e;camination wtd. tlte time of their examination. A rninimum of seuetn dags prior notie in utriting will be deliuered. in that regard. Euery petitioner must end.eauour fullg to be present before tle Medical offter anerned on that d.ag and. to the extent ne@ssctry' theg mast aoperate and allow the Med.icat offier to re-exar,.ine them tlarougltlg. A apa of the findtngs of tle Med"ical olficer :;hall.al.so be ptaed before the Apex Medical Board. for its b \i, c O 9 @ttsideration. Ifi for ang reclson' ang of the petitioners eitler ouittg to illness or ana other ampeuing factor/reason; auld not aPwarbeforetheMedicnloffirerconem.ed,ontltedateandtirne specified,libefty is granted, to such an employee to appear before tle personnet/a.d'ministratiue offier conerned and seatre an alternntiue date for examination' on which date' he sholl be present before the Medical Officer' In spite of prouiding strch an opporfimitA,ifangofthepetitionersfailtoauailthesam'e'an' d,uerseinferenebliabletobed"rawnagainstthemthotleis.: ailersetotuuehisageproperlydetermined,and.ontlwtbasis,tle fiex Mediml Board' can proeed' further' TIE date of the proeedilqsoftlwApexMedicalBoardwillal,sobeintimatedto the respectiue petitioners tpith a minimum of 7 dags notie and' each of tlw petitioners i,s entitled to present his uiew point before theApexMedicalboardandalsoproducesuchreliablean.d clirtch@ material in original (originals of certificates auailable withthem)andincasetlepetitionersprefertorelyutrnnang partianlarregister,maintainedbytterespondentcompanaitself, intimotionofwhichshatlbed"eliueredbytrerespectiue gretirioners to male auailable the original thereof for perusal and onsiderationoftlwApexMedicalboard.Tlenotie/inttmation shalt be deliuered bg the respectiue petttioners of clear three dags durationpnortotheApexMedicalBoard"meeting.IEtttewhole- b!s I I I i I I 't t l,'l t l0 {.' exerci.se be ampleted and" tle appropriate decision.of the Apex Board be cbmmunicnted to the respectiue petitioners prouiding them a minimum of 7 dags tim.e, in use the Apex Medical Board opini<>n is adudrse to tleir interests. I\11 thi"s exerci-se rb compl.eted, and all the petttioners are subjected. to this process they shall be continued in seruie if theg are in seruie a.s on todag i.e. 31.O3.2015 and tlag be paid tleir monthlg wages for this d.uration a.s ue:tt. ft shatt lwweuer be open to the respond"ents to get euery eftificate prcdued bg tlrc petitioners uerifted. on tlrcir own /t is ctartfred tltrrt omposition of *e Apex Medical Board will be a.s,.per thE settlement arriued at between *w campa.nA and. tlle reagnired emplogees union, if one such settlentent is ariued

6. In compliance with the above order, petitioner was referred to Apex Medical Boald consisting of panel of doctors - occup,ational Health specialist, Dental Surgeon, Radiologist, ophth:rlmologist, ENT surgeon and orthopaedic surgeon. The Board, after considering the own statement of petitioner, age assesst:d by the Panel of Doctors as 22 years as on L4.o6.lgrg, conf-rrnred and communicated the same to petitioner uide letter dated 11.01-2016 which was duly acknowledged by him. Hence, according to respondents, the age so assessed was incorporated in the senrice records. Thereafter, petitioner was ^-b --r- I I l I I I I I I I f I I I i t t ! I i i i ! I I r"-\ 1l retired from service of the company on O1.07.2016 and all his terminal benelits were Paid.

7. In tiew of the salne, the decision of the Apex Medical Board cannot be interdicted and at this point of time, the grievance of petitioner cannot be looked into- The Writ Petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed.

8. costs. g. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed' No Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand'closed. , ilTRUE COPY// s_Dl- E{4YY4!4E.BEDDY ASSISTANT REI}ISIRAR ,6L-7 SECTION OFFICER To

1. One CC to SRI K.VASUDEVA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRl. P SRI HARSHA REDDY (SC FOR SINGARENI COLLIERIES CO.LTD) Advocate [OPUC]

3. Two CD Copies SA TKS + e I I TLiE n l..l- \) i ,,.\ 2 8 rrl 2026 * * HIGH COURT DATED:,2310912025 ORDER WP.No.19817 of 2016 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. o oil'\l