I N THE HI GH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WRI T PETI TI ON No.22813 OF 2020 Between:

Nagula Rammohan … Petitioner And The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman & MD, Hyderabad And others … Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 09.04.2025 THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to : Yes see the fair copy of the Judgment?

________________________________ MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.22813 OF 2020 % 09.04.2025 Between:

# Nagula Rammohan … Petitioner And $ The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman & MD, Hyderabad And others … Respondents Gist:

> Head Note:

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri K.Srinivasa Rao ^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, Ld. Standing Counsel ? Cases Referred:

(1) (2011) 9 SCC 664 HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.22813 OF 2020

ORDER:

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 2^nd 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 Mi