WP/8954/2016 of Thallam Madhava Kishan, Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, on 3 September 2026

O R D E R:

The case of petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Badli Filler on 10.04.1977 at MVK-II Incline, Bellampally, Adilabad District; at that time, Colliery Medical Officer assessed his age as 20 years as on 07.02.1977. Though, it is claimed, he passed SSC much prior to his initial appointment and though he had produced the certificate, the same was not considered and his age was assessed by the Medical Officer along with the other workmen, as per the existing practice. According to petitioner, as the age of superannuation of the workers working in the 1st respondent

Company is 60 years, he is entitled to be continued in service up to 28.02.2017.

1.1. While the matter stood thus, vide proceeding dated 26.02.2016, petitioner was advised to attend the Area Hospital, Bellampally on 27.02.2016 to undergo tests, stating that his date of birth was entered as 20.10.1955 in SSC certificate as well as in Overman Certificate of Competency, which is differing with the Company's records. Accordingly, he appeared before the Area Hospital on 27.02.2016 and thereafter, applied for leave from 29.02.2016 to 02.03.2016 and went to Hyderabad with his wife, to attend her medically. Meanwhile, it seems, the Area Age Determination Committee, suo motu, stated to have held its meeting on 29.02.2016 and decided his age as 60 years as on 20.10.2015 and based on the above decision, proceedings dated 29.02.2016 was issued seeking to retire him from service with effect from 31.10.2015 and his name was removed with effect from 01-03-2016. Aggrieved, the Writ Petition is filed.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy submits that even to the admittance of respondents, the Colliery Medical Officer assessed the age of petitioner as 20 years as on 07.02.1977 and the same was entered in all the statutory records, such as, B-Register, which is being maintained as per the Mines Rules; it is wholly unjustifiable on the part of respondents to modify the date of birth based on the administration instructions issued in 2001. According to learned counsel, the contents of Form-B are entered as per Rule-48 (3), 51, 77, 77 (A) (2) of the Mines Rules; therefore, the entries made in the statutory records cannot be modified by the respondents, suo motu that too, in an unilateral manner without giving any notice or affording any opportunity. It is submitted, though, petitioner had shown the SSC certificate, his age was assessed by the Colliery Medical Officer along with other workmen. In catena of judgments, this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, dates of birth of workmen cannot be altered at the fag end of their service. This principle applies not only to the workmen but also to the employer, contends learned counsel. In the instant case, without conducting any enquiry, petitioner is sought to be retired prematurely by depriving 14 months of service, he laments.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent - Singareni Collieries Company Limited Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy submits that since petitioner did not submit any documentary proof regarding his age/date of birth at the time of initial appointment, his age was assessed as 20 years as on 07.02.1977 by the then Colliery Medical Officer in the Age Assessment Form as well in the Initial Medical Examination

(IME )Form-O, and the same age/date of birth was recorded in the authentic documents such as Identity & Service Card, B- Register and CMPF Form-A. Once the Age/date of birth of the petitioner recorded as 20 years as on 07.02.1977 in the above service records, the same is authentic and final. It is submitted that the subsequently-submitted certificates/ documents such as Transfer Certificate, SSC, containing his date of birth as 20.10.1955, cannot be taken into consideration for correction of his date of birth which was already recorded in the Service Records. According to learned Standing Counsel, petitioner acknowledged that his date of birth was entered as 07.02.1957 (i.e. 20 years as on 07.02.1977) in all the records of the respondent company and if at all he has any objection, he ought to have done the same while assessing his age by the Colliery Medical Officer and also at the time of recording his date of birth in the service records, but he is representing this matter at the fag end of service with mala fide intentions.

3.1. It is submitted, as per the rules of the respondent company, if any employee, who is 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 said age/date of birth shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances. Since petitioner has 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, assessed the age of petitioner as 20 years as on 07.02.1977 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 Form-A (CMPF) and EPR. Now, petitioner, at the fag end of his service, filed this Writ Petition which is not tenable under law.

3.2. According to learned Standing Counsel, had the petitioner submitted SSC certificate at the time of his appointment, there would not have been any need to direct him for assessment of age/date of birth to the Colliery Medical Officer. Even, the medical tests performed on petitioner, the AADC has confirmed his age to be 60 as on 20.10.2015. Since petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years as on 20.10.2015, he was retired from the services of the respondent company after duty hours on 31.10.2015 and his name was removed from the rolls of the respondent company with effect from 01.03.2016. Subsequent to his retirement from the services of the respondent company, the petitioner has claimed all his terminal benefits detailed in the counter.

3.2. Learned counsel submits that in Form-O (document pertaining Initial Medical Examination), it was mentioned that petitioner was illiterate and he has affixed thumb impression beneath the text contained in the IME Form-O. Hence, it cannot be said that no notice was issued to him.

4. In reply, learned counsel for petitioner submits that based on SSC Certificate, petitioner was promoted to various cadres, such as, Shot Firer, Mining Sirdar, Overman and at any point of time, he had not suppressed the factum of passing the SSC at the time of appointment. Even as per the respondents in all the service statutory records, his age was recorded as 20 years as on 07-02-1977. But ignoring such records, he cannot be retired from service effective from 31.10.2015 even before he attained the actual age of superannuation as per the service records in the company. The further contention of respondents that, petitioner is representing the matter of premature retirement is factually incorrect. As a matter of fact, vide proceeding dated 29.02.2016, petitioner was declared as retired from service w.e.f. 31.10.2015 prematurely though he is entitled to be continued in service up to 28-02-2017.

4.1. It is the argument of learned counsel for petitioner that it is no more res integra that any medical authority or Age Assessment Authority can only assess the age of any employee prospectively, but, in the instant case, Area Age Determination Committee, which allegedly met on 29.06.2016 stated to have assessed his age as 60 years as on 20-10-2015 retrospectively which is not possible. It is submitted that terminal benefits during the pendency of this writ petition does not tantamount to giving up my right to pursue the present Writ Petition.

5. From a perusal of the material on record, it is to be noted, even according to respondents, petitioner was aged 20 years as of 1977. Therefore, his retirement would be in 2017 on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years as per respondents. Therefore, on the face of the record, this Court is of the opinion that retiring the petitioner in 2015 itself amounts to undue premature retirement. Hence, petitioner is entitled to the service benefits up to 28.02.2017.

6. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed, directing the respondent Company to pay petitioner service benefits from the date he was prematurely retired on 30.10.2015 till 28.02.2017 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

7. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.

-------- -----------------------------

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 03nd September 2026 ksld