M RAMAIAH Vs. SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner joined the service of Singareni Collieries as temporary Tunnel Mazdoor, on 27. 4. 1973. Subsequently, he was drafted as General mazdoor on 1. 4. 1976 and promoted as Charger Safety Lamp on 1. 6. 1977. Thereafter, he earned promotion as Lamp Room Fitter, with effect from 1. 4. 1989, and at present, he is working in that capacity. Through proceedings dated 6. 10. 2003, the respondents informed the petitioner that his date of birth was confirmed as 14. 3. 1949, on the basis of the medical examination, and that he would attain the age of superannuation on 14. 3. 2009. This was followed by another communication, dated 4. 1. 2008, wherein it was informed that he would retire on 14. 3. 2009, extended to last working day i. e. 31. 3. 2009, on attaining the age of 60 years.

(2.) PETITIONER contends that he studied up to HSC, and in the certificate issued by the competent authority, the date of birth was mentioned as 1. 2. 1951, and the same was reflected in the important records, such as, Identity Card, service Register, b-Register, etc. He contends that the date of birth was altered to 14. 3. 1949, in the year 2001, without notice to him, and the so-called assessment made by the Area Age Determination Committee (for short "the Committee"), is without any jurisdiction. He seeks a writ in the form of a declaration, to the effect that he is entitled to continue in service, till 1. 2. 2011, and for a declaration that the proceedings, dated 6. 10. 2003 and 4. 1. 2008, are illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

(3.) THE respondents filed a counter affidavit, stating that the petitioner did not file any certificate, much less, the HSC certificate, in proof of his date of birth, and on medical examination, at the time of joining in service, his age was mentioned as 24 years. It is stated that contrary to the said entry, his date of birth was mentioned in certain records as 1. 2. 1951, and the same was corrected, duly following the procedure prescribed under Circular, dated 12. 1. 2001. It is also stated that felt aggrieved by the communication issued to him in the year 2001, the petitioner raised a dispute and accordingly, he was subjected to examination by the Committee. According to them, the Committee had opined that the petitioner was of 24 years of age, as on the date of entry into service, and that the same has become final. Reliance is placed upon certain judgments rendered by the Supreme Court, in the context of alteration of dates of births of the employees. 3. Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in all the relevant records, including the Identity Card and Service Register, the date of birth of the petitioner was entered as 1. 2. 1951, on the basis of the HSC certificate, and the respondents have unilaterally changed the same to 14. 3. 1949, in the year 2001. He further contends that to perpetuate the illegality committed by the respondents, they have produced the petitioner before the Committee, and though the said Committee was not at all conferred with the power to determine the age, it had undertaken the task. He submits that the action of the respondents is contrary to settled principles of law.