Judgment :- Singareni Collieries is the largest State-owned public sector undertaking in Andhra Pradesh. It provides employment to skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled workers, and supplies fossil fuel to several important organizations. The principal contribution to the wealth of the company is by the persons working in the mines, who are mostly Badli Fillers and employees of similar category. 2. The work of a Badli Filler involves ardent physical labour. Hardly any person with average education also opts for such post. It is only the school dropouts and illiterates that are recruited for the said posts. Almost as a matter of course, there do not exist any proof of date of birth for such persons. Once a candidate is found physically fit, he is subjected to medical examination for general check up as well as for determination of his approximate age. The date of birth of the candidate is arrived at by subtracting the age, so determined, from the date of selection or date of examination. For example, if a candidate is selected on 01.07.1975 and age is determined at 23 years, his date of birth is shown as 01.07.1952. Such pattern is followed through out. The date of birth so arrived at is first entered in the service register, which is a small booklet and then in the B-register, which is required to be maintained under the Mines Act. The age of superanuation for such employees is 60 years. 3. The petitioner joined the service of Singareni Collieries on 13.06.1978. Since he did not have any proof of his age, the medical practitioner of the company assessed his age to be 25 years. The said age and the corresponding date of birth are mentioned in all the concerned records including B-register. 4. The petitioner was issued a communication on 25.08.2009 informing that he would attain the age of superannuation on 14.10.2010 and that he would retire from service on 31.10.2010. The petitioner submitted representations stating that the said intimation is opposed to the records. This was followed by another intimation, dated 28.02.2011, wherein the petitioner was informed that he would attain the age of superannuation on 18.09.2011 and that he would retire from service on 30.09.2011. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same and filed this writ petition. 5. The petitioner submitted representations stating that the said intimation is opposed to the records. This was followed by another intimation, dated 28.02.2011, wherein the petitioner was informed that he would attain the age of superannuation on 18.09.2011 and that he would retire from service on 30.09.2011. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same and filed this writ petition. 5. The petitioner contends that the respondents have unilaterally altered the entries in the service record and are proposing to retire him much before he attains the age of superannuation. He contends that he would attain the age of superannuation on 13.04.2013 and that there is no justification for the respondents in proposing to retire him earlier to that. 6. The respondents filed a counter affidavit. According to them, some overwriting was noticed in the service register of the petitioner and accordingly, he was subjected to medical examination. It is stated that the team of Doctors assessed the age of the petitioner as 58 years as on 18.09.2009. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 8. It is not in dispute that the age of the petitioner was mentioned as 25 years as on the date of joining the duty. In the service register and B-register, the only basis for the respondents to take inconsistent stand and to subject him to medical test as recently as in 2009, is an alleged overwriting in the service register. Since the career of a Mazdoor is involved, this Court summoned the original of the service register. A perusal thereof discloses that against the column relating to ‘age’, it was clearly mentioned as ‘25 years’ as on the date of joining duty. An overwriting, which is initially written as 36 years and thereafter 30 years and ultimately struck off, occurs in an open space above the column relating to ‘age and sex’. 9. The first intimation to the petitioner, dated 25.08.2009 did not have any basis whatever and he was simply informed that he would retire with effect from 31.10.2010. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that it was given on the basis of the observations of the Age Determination Committee. On a representation made by the petitioner, the Vigilance Cell of the company is said to have verified the matter and found that the records of the Age Determination Committee are not properly maintained. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that it was given on the basis of the observations of the Age Determination Committee. On a representation made by the petitioner, the Vigilance Cell of the company is said to have verified the matter and found that the records of the Age Determination Committee are not properly maintained. That led to the steps requiring the petitioner to appear for medical test in September 2009. The second communication is based upon the medical test. 10. In the recent past, this Court has come across quite a good number of instances, where some indiscriminate elements in the higher administration of the company are playing with the lives of the gullible and illiterate Mazdoors. 11. It needs to be mentioned that all the records are not only maintained but also are in the custody of the administration of the company. The employees do not have any access to them. It is only certain selfish employees in the administration, that are resorting to interpolation of entries in records, obviously to extract money or to blackmail the employees of lower cadre. In an organization of such a magnitude, the practices of this nature need to be curbed. It is high time that the top administration focuses its attention to this malady. The illegalities committed by the officials of the company are resulting in unnecessary litigation for the employees and to the company, apart from subjecting many of them to trauma of a considerable degree. 12. In the instant case, there was absolutely no basis for the respondents to doubt the age of the petitioner, which is accurately mentioned in the service register and B-register. The only effort that ought to have been made was to identify the person, who wrote the figures ‘30’ and ‘36’ and to impose maximum punishment against him. There was absolutely no basis to issue the impugned proceedings. 13. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are set aside.It is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to remain in service till 13.04.2013.There shall be no order as to costs.