ORDER :

This Writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“….to issue a writ, order or direction, more in nature of Writ Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in retiring the petitioner from service prematurely, as illegal, and arbitrary and set aside the impugned proceedings No.MMR/KK.1/W/2020/1382 dated 21.03.2020 issued by the 4th respondent; consequently to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service up to 30.06.2023, duly granting all other consequential and attendant benefits……”

2. Heard Sri Kalvala Sanjeev, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri P.Sriharsha Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents.

3. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Floating Badli Filler and posted work at KK-1-Incline on 26.09.1986 and subsequently promoted he was promoted as Lineman. As the petitioner has no birth certificate at the time of initial appointment his age was assessed by the Medical officer and basing on that the respondent-corporation issued Office Order in proceedings No.P.Bpa/261.IV/3370 dated 26.09.1986 recording the date of birth of the petitioner as 30.06.1963, as such the petitioner’s date of birth is being treated as 30.06.1963. The same date of birth was entered in all the service records of the company including B-Register, Service and identity card, employee personal record and as per date of birth of the petitioner he has to continue in service up to 30.06.2023. While it being so, surprisingly the 4th respondent issued impugned proceedings on 21.03.2020 stating that the petitioner’s age is a dispute and the same case has been examined by the Apex Medical Board and it has confirmed the age of the petitioner as 60 years as on 18.03.2020 and he was compelled to retire from service with effect from 31.03.2020 prematurely thereby depriving more than three years of service.

4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the contention of the 4th respondent that the petitioner’s age was confirmed as 60 years as on 18.03.2020 in the medical examination is factually incorrect. The various records from the date of initial appointment till the date of issuance of impugned order clearly and clinchingly establish that the date of birth of the petitioner is being treated as 30.06.1963. However, ignoring all those records, without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without affording any opportunity, the impugned order was issued basing on some fabricated record. Merely because the personal record and statutory records of the petitioner are in the custody of respondents they cannot arbitrarily fabricate the same, thereby putting the petitioner to untold hardship.

5. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that, on many occasions this Court as the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the dates of birth of the employees cannot be arbitrarily modified, that too, at the fag end of one’s career and in support of his contention relied on the judgment of this Court in Rasakatla Madanaiah Vs Singareni Collieries Ltd., (Unreported Judgment in WP No.6972 of 2011 of High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 26.03.2012).

6. The Learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondents, basing on the counter, submits that as per as per implementation instructions No.76 issued by the Joint Bi-Partite Committee for Coal (JBCCI-IV), where there is variation in the age recorded in the records, such cases will be referred to the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board consisting of the General Manager/Chief Personnel Manager and Medical officer-In charge of the area. The Learned Standing Counsel further submits that, the petitioner was issued Office Order appointing him as Floating Badli Filter, but inadvertently the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 23 years as on 30.06.1986 instead of 28 years, due to typographical error, and the same was recorded in service book employee personal record, B-Register etc.