01/12/2010 Boddu Laxmi Rajam Versus The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director & Others The petitioner joined the service of Singareni Collieries Company Limited, the 1st respondent herein, on 28-10-1975, as Bit Grander. His age was mentioned as 21 years as on the date of joining the duty. The same was reflected in the identity card issued to the petitioner as well as the ‘B’ register, maintained by the Company. In the year 1996, when the petitioner was being referred to medical examination, the Management mentioned his age as 25 years, as on the date of appointment. Immediately, the petitioner made a representation on 11-04-1996, pointing out the discrepancy. No steps were taken thereon, in spite of submission of repeated reminders. On 11-08-2009, the petitioner was served with a notice, informing that he would attain the age of superannuation on 01-10-2010. This was on the basis, that his age as on the date of entering the service was 25 years. The petitioner made a representation once again. He has also approached the Assistant Commissioner of Coal Mines Provident Fund, to furnish the service particulars, according to the records maintained by them. The same was forwarded to the respondents. The petitioner was referred to Apex Medical Board, vide proceedings dated 17-12-2009, by treating his date of birth, as per the records, as 26-09-1950. The Board is said to have determined the date of birth of the petitioner as, 19-12-1950. That was communicated to the petitioner, vide proceedings dated 04-01-2010. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. He contends that his date of birth was 20-06-1954, as evidenced by the school records, and the same was reflected in terms of years in his service records, through out. The respondents filed a detailed counter-affidavit and connected documents.

According to them, the age of the petitioner was determined by the Medical Officer, at the time of recruitment, and in the service register, it was mentioned as 25 years. The fact, that the age of the petitioner was mentioned as 21 years in the ‘B’ register and other documents, is not denied. The respondents contend that the procedure, prescribed for determination of the age by the Medical Board, in the event of their being any discrepancy, was followed, and no illegality has taken place, at any stage. Sri Srinivasa Rao Putluri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client studied up to 7th Class in an institution, and the date of birth was recorded as 20-06-1954, and that the age was also mentioned at every stage, on the basis of that date. He contends that, it was only in the year 1996, that the respondents came forward with a plea, that the age of the petitioner, when he entered the service, was 25 years, and soon thereafter, the petitioner made representation. Learned counsel submits that the respondents cannot, by themselves, raise a dispute, and refer the matter to the Medical Board. He alleges that the so-called assessment, by the Medical Board, is improper and contrary to record. Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that though it is true that the age of the petitioner was mentioned as 21 years in the ‘B’ register and other documents, in the service register, it was entered as 25 years. He contends that, soon after the discrepancy was noticed in the year 1996, the petitioner was informed of the same. Learned counsel further submits that the prescribed procedure was followed, to resolve the dispute. The petitioner was appointed against an unskilled post in the year 1975. Hardly any educational qualifications are required for it. It is only the physical endurance of the candidates, that is tested. The age of the selected candidates is entered on the basis of the assessment, by a Medical Officer. It is not in dispute that ‘B’ register happens to be the basic document, containing the particulars of the employees,