IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL No.1002 of 2025 DATED: 03.12.2025 Between:

M. Rajeswar S/o. M. Narsaiah ... Appellant AND The Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL) & 7 others ... Respondents

JUDGMENT:

Heard Mr. G.Allabakash, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Anil Komireddy, learned counsel representing Mr. C.Raman Kumar Reddy, learned Additional Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 7.

2. The writ petition was filed with the following prayer:

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned order Ref.No. MMR/SK/W15/2024/984 dated 28-3-2024 issued by the 7^th respondent Ref.No. MMR/PER/L/062/24/4242 dated 19-9-2024 issued by the 5th respondent and Ref. No. MMR/SK/P.14/24/2180 dated 21-9-2024 issued by the 6^th respondent intimating the petitioner’s due date of retirement date 31-5-2025 though the date of retirement on 30-6-2030 as per date of birth as 25-6-1970 as recorded by the 7^th class examination of Board is illegal, arbitrary violative of Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and The Age Disputes and Retirement Rules and set aside the same consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service as Pump Operator in the Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL) Bhadradri Kothagudem district by granting all the service benefits to the petitioner and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. The prayer was denied by the learned writ Court with the following findings:

“6. There is no dispute that the petitioner joined in the respondents’ Company on 23.08.1988, and at the time of appointment, he did not produce any certificate with regard to his date of birth. As per respondents’ Company Rules and JBCCI guidelines, if any employee an illiterate or has not submitted any proof of his age/date of birth at the time of his appointment, his age/date of birth will be determined by the Colliery Medical Officer and the age/date of birth as determined by the Colliery Medical Officer shall be treated as the correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances. In view of the same, since the petitioner had not submitted any proof of his age/date of birth at the time of his appointment, he was referred to the Colliery Medical Officer for assessment of his age/date of birth. The Colliery Medical Officer, as per the rules of the respondent Company and JBCCI guidelines, has assessed the age of the petitioner as 24 years as on 25.05.1988, i.e., 25.05.1964 and the petitioner has acknowledged it and the same was treated as final and subsequently recorded in all the statutory records of the respondent Company such as Form-O, Form-B Register, Service Book and EPR. The petitioner neither denied it nor questioned the said date of birth as determined by the Colliery Medical Officer till the fag end of his service.

7. It is pertinent to mention here that as per personal information provided by the petitioner to the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization, his wife’s name is mentioned as M. Sunitha, and her date of birth is shown as 01.07.1968. If the petitioner’s date of birth, as alleged by him, is in the year 1970, would he accept his wife’s date of year as 1968? That itself shows that the petitioner did not submit any document with regard to his date of birth at the time of his appointment. As per the respondents’ Company Rules and JBCCI guidelines, the entire record was prepared, and the petitioner signed all the forms without any protest. In view of the same, it is made clear that the respondent Company did not make any incorrect entry regardin