ORDER : NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. 1.1. Petitioner’s case is that he was initially appointed as Trainee General Mazdoor at PK-1 Incline on 17-07-1978 and promoted from time to time up to the post of Welder in 1987. He studied up to 7th class and also completed ITI (Welder) in 1975 itself and he produced Transfer Certificate issued by the Head Master & Correspondent, St. Joseph High School, Rudrampur, Kothagudem, and as per the National Trade Certificate issued by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, his date of birth is 05-11-1958. Consequently, in all of his service records, such as, Form-B register, Form-A (CMPF Ledger Card) and Identity Card, date of birth was entered as 05-11-1958. 1.2. It is stated, petitioner is entitled to be continued in service till 30-11-2018, till he attains 60. However, recently, the 1 st respondent Company published the service details of all the employees working in the area, wherein his age was described as 22 years as on 14-06-1978, which is not only incorrect but also contrary to the records. He submitted representation dated 21-01-2015 to continue him in service up to 30-11-2018, however, proceeding dated 06-06-2015 was issued by the 3 rd respondent to retire him from service with effect from 01-07-2016. Then, he filed Writ Petition No.26576 of 2015 wherein respondents were directed to conduct fresh medical examination for assessment of age. 1.3. Consequently, petitioner appeared before the Main Hospital, Kothagudem on 23-11-2015, whereat, all the tests were conducted by the ward boys and he was asked to be present before the Apex Medical Board on 30-11-2015. All the doctors and even the members of the Apex Medical Board were with a predetermined notion to hold his age as 59 years as on 30-11-2015. Precisely for this reason, no proper medical tests were conducted. 1.4. Petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bharat Coking Coat Ltd. v. Chhota Birsa Uranw , [2014 Law Suit (SC) 344] , wherein it has been held that school record should be given precedence over the medical examinations conducted by the Medical Board. It is stated, the action of respondents in determining his age as 59 years as on 30-11-2015 thereby depriving 29 months of service is wholly unjustifiable and proceedings dated 18-12-2015 issued by the 3 rd respondent is liable to be set aside. It is stated, the action of respondents in determining his age as 59 years as on 30-11-2015 thereby depriving 29 months of service is wholly unjustifiable and proceedings dated 18-12-2015 issued by the 3 rd respondent is liable to be set aside. It is therefore, prayed to direct respondents to continue petitioner in service up to 30-11-2018 duly granting all other consequential and attendant benefits or in the alternative direct respondents to refer his case to Osmania Government Hospital, Hyderabad, for assessment of age afresh. 2. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent - Singareni Collieries Company Limited, it is stated, as petitioner did not produce any evidence in proof of his date of birth at the time of appointment, he was directed to Initial Medical Examination for assessing his age where his date of birth was assessed by the colliery medical officer as 22 years as on 14.06.1978. Pursuant to the same, his date of birth was recorded in all the statutory records of Respondent Company as 14.06.1956. 2.1. It is stated, as per Implementation Instruction No.76 of the Joint Bipartite Committee for Coal Industry (JBCCI), the procedure in determination of the age/date of birth at the time of appointment in respect of Non-matriculates but educated who have pursued studies in a recognized educational institution, the date of birth recorded in the School Leaving Certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances. In case of illiterate, the date of birth would be determined by the Colliery Medical Officer keeping in view any documentary and other relevant evidence as produced by the appointee. Date of birth as determined shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances. 2.2. It is stated, in 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. 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. 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 Committee/Medical Board. through Age Determination. 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 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. For determination of the age, the Committee Medical Board referred to above may consider the evidences available with the Colliery management and/or adduced before it by the employee concerned. Medical Board constituted for determination of age will be required to assess the age in accordance with the requirement of "Medical Jurisprudence" and the Medical Board will as far as possible indicate the accurate age assessed and not approximately. 2.3. It is stated, petitioner did not submit any documentary proof of age/date of birth at the time of his appointment in the Respondent Company, the then Colliery Medical Officer after examining had assessed the age of petitioner as 22 years as on 14.06.1978 in the Initial Medical Examination (IME) Form, and the age as assessed above is authentic and the same was accepted by petitioner. The age of Petitioner was assessed by the colliery medical officer at the time of his appointment itself to which the Petitioner accepted and signed the same. It is submitted that the averments of the petitioner that in all his service records, the date of birth was entered as 05-11-1958 is not true and correct. 2.4. It is also stated, Respondent Company vide letter dated 06.06.2015 informed petitioner that his date of birth was recorded as 14.06.1956 in the company records, as such, he would retire from the services of the Company w.e.f. 01.07.2016. 2.4. It is also stated, Respondent Company vide letter dated 06.06.2015 informed petitioner that his date of birth was recorded as 14.06.1956 in the company records, as such, he would retire from the services of the Company w.e.f. 01.07.2016. Challenging the same, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 26576 of 2015 which was disposed of in terms of the common order in Writ Petition No. 33343 of 2012. In compliance with the above order, Respondent Company referred petitioner for age assessment to Apex Medical Board consisting of panel of doctors comprising of Occupational health Specialist, Dental Surgeon, Radiologist, Ophthalmologist, ENT Surgeon and Orthopedic Surgeon. The Committee explained the petitioner regarding the Rules Regulations governing the Constitution of Apex Medical Board including the procedure to determine the Age as per JBCCI guidelines. In accordance with the above guidelines, the service records of petitioner containing his age/date of birth and also the Medical Examination finding of the Panel of Doctor were placed before the Apex Medical Board. It is stated that after considering the petitioner's own statement, age assessed by the Panel of Doctors comprising of Occupational Health Specialist, Dental Surgeon, Radiologist, Ophthalmologist, ENT Surgeon and Orthopedic Surgeon and taking into consideration of the age recorded in the above Company's records, the Apex Medical Board assessed the age of the petitioner as above 59 years as on 30.11.2015 as such the date of birth of the petitioner in the company records i.e. 22 years as on 14.0.1978 was confirmed and the same was communicated to petitioner vide letter dated 11.01.2016 which was duly acknowledged by him. 2.5. It is reiterated that the petitioner did not submit any documentary proof of his age/date of birth at the time of his appointment in the Respondent Company, the then Colliery Medical Officer after examining had assessed the age of the petitioner as 22 years as on 14.06.1978 in the Initial Medical Examination (IME) Form, and the age as assessed above is authentic and the same was accepted by the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the age so assessed by the then Colliery Medical Officer in the IME Form as 22 years as on 14.06.1978 and the same was converted as his date of birth as 14.06.1956 and incorporated the same age/date of birth in the Service Records of the petitioner maintained by the Respondent Company. Hence, it is submitted that the age so assessed by the then Colliery Medical Officer in the IME Form as 22 years as on 14.06.1978 and the same was converted as his date of birth as 14.06.1956 and incorporated the same age/date of birth in the Service Records of the petitioner maintained by the Respondent Company. It is stated that petitioner retired from the services of Respondent Company on 01.07.2016 and all his terminal benefits were paid. 3. Petitioner filed reply reiterating the averments in the writ affidavit and denying the averments in the counter. 4. Heard Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri P. Srihasha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Collieries Limited and perused the record. 5. It is to be seen that petitioner already filed Writ Petition No. 26576 of 2015 challenging the proceedings dated 06.06.2015 issued by the 3rd respondent which, according to him, sought to retire him, prematurely. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 31.08.2015 in terms of the common order in Writ Petition No. 33343 of 2012. It was directed in the said Writ Petition that “All I need to add is that the petitioners whoever is on the rolls of the first respondent- company as of today, i.e. 31.03.2015 and who has been proposed to be retired either in the past or in the nearest future shall be subjected to medical examination on specified dates. Each of the petitioners will be given the intimation of the date of their examination and the time of their examination. A minimum of seven days prior notice in writing will be delivered in that regard. Every petitioner must endeavour fully to be present before the Medical Officer concerned on that day and to the extent necessary, they must cooperate and allow the Medical Officer to re-examine them thoroughly. A copy of the findings of the Medical Officer shall also be placed before the Apex Medical Board for its consideration. If, for any reason, any of the petitioners either owing to illness or any other compelling factor/reason, could not appear before the Medical Officer concerned, on the date and time specified, liberty is granted to such an employee to appear before the personnel/administrative officer concerned and secure an alternative date for examination, on which date, he shall be present before the Medical Officer. In spite of providing such an opportunity, if any of the petitioners fail to avail the same, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against them that he is averse to have his age properly determined and on that basis, the Apex Medical Board can proceed further. The date of the proceedings of the Apex Medical Board will also be intimated to the respective petitioners with a minimum of 7 days notice and each of the petitioners is entitled to present his view point before the Apex Medical board and also produce such reliable and clinching material in original (originals of certificates available with them) and in case the petitioners prefer to rely upon any particular register, maintained by the respondent company itself, intimation of which shall be delivered by the respective petitioners to make available the original thereof for perusal and consideration of the Apex Medical board. The notice/intimation shall be delivered by the respective petitioners of clear three days duration prior to the Apex Medical Board meeting. Let the whole exercise be completed and the appropriate decision of the Apex Board be communicated to the respective petitioners providing them a minimum of 7 days time, in case the Apex Medical Board opinion is adverse to their interests. Till this exercise is completed, and all the petitioners are subjected to this process they shall be continued in service if they are in service as on today i.e. 31.03.2015 and they be paid their monthly wages for this duration as well. It shall however be open to the respondents to get every certificate produced by the petitioners verified on their own. It is clarified that composition of the Apex Medical Board will be as per the settlement arrived at between the company and the recognized employees union, if one such settlement is arrived. 6. In compliance with the above order, petitioner was referred to Apex Medical Board consisting of panel of doctors – Occupational Health Specialist, Dental Surgeon, Radiologist, Ophthalmologist, ENT Surgeon and Orthopaedic Surgeon. The Board, after considering the own statement of petitioner, age assessed by the Panel of Doctors as 22 years as on 14.06.1978, confirmed and communicated the same to petitioner vide letter dated 11.01.2016 which was duly acknowledged by him. Hence, according to respondents, the age so assessed was incorporated in the service records. The Board, after considering the own statement of petitioner, age assessed by the Panel of Doctors as 22 years as on 14.06.1978, confirmed and communicated the same to petitioner vide letter dated 11.01.2016 which was duly acknowledged by him. Hence, according to respondents, the age so assessed was incorporated in the service records. Thereafter, petitioner was retired from service of the company on 01.07.2016 and all his terminal benefits were paid. 7. In view of the same, the decision of the Apex Medical Board cannot be interdicted and at this point of time, the grievance of petitioner cannot be looked into. The Writ Petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed. 8. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 9. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.