Telangana High Court

Jetti Lachaiah vs The Director Pa And W, on 12 August, 2025

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
                                AND
          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN


                 Writ Appeal No.391 of 2025

JUDGMENT:

Heard Mr.K.Thirumala Rao, learned counsel for the

appellant. Also heard Mr.P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned

Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited

appearing for the respondents.

2. The learned writ court has referred the appellant,

who is the writ petitioner, to the Age Determination

Committee/Medical Board on the question of

determination of his age.

3. Writ petitioner approached the writ court with the

following prayer:

"...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the Respondents in not considering his representations dated 28/03/2022 and 03/07/2023 and issuing the impugned proceedings Ref.No.SCES/SEC/2023/655 dated 10/06/2023 and Ref.No.SCES/SEC/2023/1299 dated 03/11/2023 and consequential proceedings Ref.No.SCES/SEC/2023/1423 dated 06/12/2023 stipulating that on attaining the age of 61 years on 10/12/2024 he has to retire on

Superannuation from the services of Singareni Collieries Educational Society in the afternoon of 31/12/2024, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently to issue directions to the respondents to accept the Date of Birth as brought out and maintained by the respondents in the S.C. High School Civil List, CMPF Records and Service Register and consequently continue the petitioner in service till he attains his age of 61 years on 08/06/2032 and thereby retire on attaining superannuation on 30/06/2032 and to pass..."

4. In the earlier round of litigation in W.P.No.24454 of

2001, writ petitioner had prayed for regularization of his

service as employee of Singareni Collieries Educational

Society (SCES). The learned writ court directed

regularization of his services vide order dated 26.12.2017.

He was subjected to Medical Board, which determined his

date of birth on the basis of the Ration Card produced by

him as 10.12.1963. Writ petitioner was sought to be retired

on the basis of the entry made in his Service Book with

effect from 31.12.2024. Therefore, he approached this

Court again for the aforesaid relief. The learned writ court

took into consideration Clause (B) of Implementation

Instruction No.76, which relates to review/determination of

date of birth in respect of existing employees and also the

variation in the date of birth recorded in Civil List/Coal

Mines Provident Fund (CMPF) records and the Service

Book and therefore, referred the matter to the Age

Determination Committee/Medical Board for determination

of his age. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the writ

petitioner has preferred this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

learned writ court ought to have held that the date of birth

of the appellant is 08.06.1971 as recorded in the Civil

List/CMPF Records, Form PS-3, Form PS-4, instead of

Form 'O' and Service Book relied upon by the respondents

to treat his date of birth as 10.12.1963. It is submitted that

the writ petitioner entered into the service as a contingent

worker on 01.10.1993 in the SCES, where his date of birth

is mentioned as 08.06.1971, thereby, he should have

superannuated with effect from 30.06.2032, instead of

31.12.2024.

6. Our attention has been drawn to the Civil List (page

55) prepared by the S.C.High School, Sector-III, Incline

Colony, Gadavarikhani, but this document does not

contain the date on which it was prepared, though the date

of birth of the writ petitioner has been recorded as

08.06.1971.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn our

attention to the declaration made by the employee in

CMPF, which records the date of birth of the appellant as

08.06.1971.

8. However, this Form is again self-filled. Form PS-3 is

attached to the declaration, which again is self-filled and

contains the date of birth of the writ petitioner as

08.06.1971. Similar is the Nomination Form filled by the

employee. Admittedly, he was not a matriculate. His

Service Book (page 65) was opened on 10.05.2018 and

records his date of birth as 08.06.1971 vide order dated

09.05.2018 (page 144).

9. The variation in the CMPF records with the

documents relied upon by the employer i.e. his Service

Book and Form O, persuaded the learned writ court to

refer his case for age determination to the Age

Determination Committee/Medical Board as is provided

under the Implementation Instruction No.76 which lays

down the procedure for determination/verification age of

employees and reads as under:

"B) Review/determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees:

i) a) In the case of the existing employees Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the recognized Universities or Board or Middle Pass Certificate issued by the Board of Education and/or Department of Public Instruction and admit cards issued by the aforesaid Bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said Universities/Boards/Institutions prior to the date of employment.

b) Similarly, Mining Sirdarship, Winding Engine or similar other statutory certificates where the Manager had to certify the date of birth will be treated as authentic.

ii) Wherever there is no variation in records, such cases will not be reopened unless there is a very glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the Management. The management after being satisfied on the merits of the case will take appropriate action for correction through Age Determination Committee/Medical Board.

c) Age Determination Committee/ Medical Board for the above will be constituted by the Management. In the case of employees where date of birth cannot be determined in accordance with the procedure mentioned in (B)(i)(a) or (B)(i)(b) above, the date of birth recorded in the records of the company namely, Form B register, CMPF Records and

Identity Cards (untampered) will be treated as final.

Provided that where there is a variation in the age recorded in the records mentioned above, the matter will be referred to the age Determination Committee/Medical Board constituted by the Management for determination of age."

10. The above conspectus of facts show that there are no

documents contemporaneous with the entry of the writ

petitioner into service in 1993 showing his date of birth

recorded at that point of time. Other documents, such as

CMPS Form and other forms annexed thereto are self-filled.

The age determined by the Medical Officer at the time of

regularization shows his date of birth as 10.12.1963 on the

basis of his ration card. Therefore, the learned writ court

could not have come to a conclusion as to which one of the

two dates is his correct date of birth. In such

circumstances, the procedure laid down by the Singareni

Collieries Company Limited for determination/verification