1. Employee sought to set aside premature retirement due to age discrepancies, contending that official company service records and educational certificates supported a later date of birth. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 2250
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
Nagula Rammohan - Petitioner
Versus
The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman & MD, Hyderabad And others – Respondents
Writ Petition No.22813 of 2020
Decided On : 09-04-2025
Important Points
While changing a date of birth at the end of a career is generally restricted, if the employer's own service records support the employee's claim, the retirement order must be reconsidered following the principles of natural justice and a personal hearing.
Subject
Service Law - Retirement and Date of Birth Disputes
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, and 21 - Premature retirement - Determination of date of birth - Change of date of birth at the fag end of a career is generally impermissible unless supported by irrefutable proof and made in accordance with prescribed procedure, particularly where a request is made after a long lapse of time (Paras 11 and 12).
(B) Natural Justice - Administrative decisions regarding retirement must be based on reasoned orders and should take into account all relevant evidence, including the employer's own service records. Failure to consider contradictory records maintained by the employer warrants a direction for reconsideration of the order (Paras 10 and 13).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was retired prematurely based on an age assessment that determined the petitioner's age to be 24 years as of 1981. However, the petitioner presented a class VII certificate and a driving license indicating a birth date of 02.06.1961. Furthermore, the respondent company's own internal records, including a service card and an employees' date of birth and retirement list, registered the birth date as 02.06.1961, which would have allowed the petitioner to continue in service until 2021.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order retiring the petitioner lacked specific reasons for the age determination conducted in 2020 and failed to refer to or consider the evidence available in the respondent company's own service records and the petitioner's educational certificates.
Issues: Whether a premature retirement order is sustainable when the employer's own service records and the employee's statutory documents indicate a different date of birth than the one used for the termination proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: Although the law restricts changes to the date of birth at the end of a career, such restrictions are balanced against the requirement of fairness. Where the employer's own service records reflect the birth date claimed by the employee, the employer is obligated to reconsider the retirement decision in accordance with the principles of natural justice, providing the employee an opportunity for a personal hearing.
Result: Writ petition allowed; respondent directed to reconsider the decision dated 31.01.2020 within four weeks.
(B) Natural Justice - Administrative decisions regarding retirement must be based on reasoned orders and should take into account all relevant evidence, including the employer's own service records. Failure to consider contradictory records maintained by the employer warrants a direction for reconsideration of the order (Paras 10 and 13).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was retired prematurely based on an age assessment that determined the petitioner's age to be 24 years as of 1981. However, the petitioner presented a class VII certificate and a driving license indicating a birth date of 02.06.1961. Furthermore, the respondent company's own internal records, including a service card and an employees' date of birth and retirement list, registered the birth date as 02.06.1961, which would have allowed the petitioner to continue in service until 2021.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order retiring the petitioner lacked specific reasons for the age determination conducted in 2020 and failed to refer to or consider the evidence available in the respondent company's own service records and the petitioner's educational certificates.
Issues: Whether a premature retirement order is sustainable when the employer's own service records and the employee's statutory documents indicate a different date of birth than the one used for the termination proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: Although the law restricts changes to the date of birth at the end of a career, such restrictions are balanced against the requirement of fairness. Where the employer's own service records reflect the birth date claimed by the employee, the employer is obligated to reconsider the retirement decision in accordance with the principles of natural justice, providing the employee an opportunity for a personal hearing.
Result: Writ petition allowed; respondent directed to reconsider the decision dated 31.01.2020 within four weeks.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri K. Srinivasa Rao
For the Respondents: Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, Ld. Standing Counsel.
For the Petitioner: Sri K. Srinivasa Rao
For the Respondents: Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, Ld. Standing Counsel.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claimed age documentation was consistent across records, while respondents contended that the lack of initial proof necessitated medical age assessment and was conclusive. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. The impugned proceedings failed to address existing company service records showing the disputed date of birth, rendering the retirement decision arbitrary and lacking in transparency. (Para 9 , 10 , 13 )
4. Authorities must reconcile discrepancies in age records by considering all available official documentation and providing a fair hearing before effecting premature retirement. (Para 13 , 14 )
5. The writ petition is allowed, directing the respondent to reconsider the retirement decision within four weeks, ensuring a personal hearing and examination of all official records. (Para 14 )
6. Does an employer have a duty to reconcile conflicting age-related service records before retiring an employee?
Yes, where an employer's internal records provide contradictory information regarding an employee's date of birth, the employer is obligated to consider all relevant service documentation and provide a personal hearing to the employee before executing a decision on retirement. (Para 10 , 13 , 14 )
7. Can a request for correction of date of birth be denied solely based on the passage of time?
While courts are generally cautious about correcting birth dates at the end of a career, it is not an absolute bar if the employer's own records indicate a different date. The correction is permissible when evidence is irrefutable and failure to act would cause real injustice. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
ORDER :
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
Heard Sri Kallakuri Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioner approached this Court seeking the prayer as under:
“…to issue an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned Proceedings Ref.No:RG2 /PER/CF/321 dated 31-01-2020 in retiring the petitioner from service prematurely with effect from 01-01-2018 instead of continuing me till 01-06-2021 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and to set aside the same and direct the respondents to continue me in service till I attain the age of superannuation as on 01-06-2021 and the pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice and fair play.”
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed as an Excavation Plant Operator in the respondent company on 25.12.1981, and had submitted all valid documents, including VII Class Certificate and a driving license, both showing the petitioner’s date of birth as 02.06.1961. This date consistently reflected in all official records, including the SSC Certificate, Service Register, CMPF records, and training records. However, the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 24.06.2019, abruptly terminated petitioner’s service based on a different date of birth 24.12.1957 without prior notice or proper verification. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner filed W.P. No.25249 of 2019 and this Court referred the matter to the Age Determination Committee and the Committee, without conducting radiological/ossification tests and by ignoring valid documents, mechanically assessed the petitioner’s age as 24 years as on 24.12.1981, contrary to JBCCI Instruction No.76. However, based on the proceedings of Area Age Determination Committee dated 16.01.2020, the Respondent No.2 issued proceedings dated 31.01.2020, upholding the previous termination proceedings of the petitioner dated 24.06.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
4. PERUSED THE RECORD:
(A) The relevant portion of the impugned proceedings of the respondent No.2 dated 31.01.2020 to the petitioner herein is extracted hereunder:
“ You have attended the above said AADC and submitted the copy of VII class certificate and claimed that your DOB as 02.06.1961. The committee had assessed your Date of Birth as 24 Yrs as on 24-12- 1981 (DOB: 24-12-1957) based on the Date of Birth entered in the Company's record at the time of your appointment in the Company. You have been explained the system of assessing the Age/DOB of an employee by the Area Age Determination Committee and the Welfare Officer/Explaining Officer of your Mine had explained the outcome of proceedings to you.
Your Age/DOB is hereby confirmed as 24 Yrs as on 24-12-1981 (DOB: 24-12-1957). Accordingly you were supposed to retire after duty hours 31.12.2017 from the Company's services. Hence, the termination from the Company's service w.e.f. 24.06.2019 issued vide Lr. No. RG2/PER/10B/1852 dtd 24.06.2019 is stands correct.”
(B) Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, in particular, paragraph Nos.8, 15, 16 are extracted hereunder:
“8. In reply to averments in Para 13 to 18, it is submitted that the petitioner has not submitted any proof with regard to his date of birth at the time of his initial appointment. As such, his age/date of birth was assessed by the Colliery Medical Officer to be 24 years as on 24.12.1987. If the petitioner has submitted his VII class certificate as claimed by him, there was no need to refer the petitioner to the Colliery Medical Officer for assessing his age/date of birth. Further, the Driving License and VII class certificate were submitted by the petitioner for appearing
