Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 WA No.703 of 2025 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.09.24 16:07:31 +0530 2025:CGHC:48722-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 703 of 2025 Smt. Sudha Devi Singh W/o Late Janardan Singh Aged About 55 Years Occupation Ecg Technician, Grade-C, Secl, Central Hospital, Hasdeo Area, Manendragarh, Distt. Koriya, C.G. (Presently Residing At Mr-1, House No. 293, Mahalaxminagar, 452010, Indore M.P. ... Appellant(s) versus 1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum Managing Director, Seepat Road, Basant Vihar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 . The Director (Personnel) Secl Basant Vihar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Chief General Manager Secl, Baikunthpur, Distt. Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 4. The General Manager (P & A) SECL, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5. The Area Manager Hasdeo Area, Secl, Baikuntpur, Distt. Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 6. The Personnel Manager Central Hospital, Manendragarh, Distt. Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
this Court in WPS No. 4162 of 2021, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant/ writ petitioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the writ Court. 2. The brief facts as projected by the petitioner in writ petition is that :- (A) The petitioner was initially appointed in SECL as General Mazdoor Category-I on 12.05.1997 and subsequently, she was promoted on the basis of her academic qualification on the post of ECG Technician Grade-C, Central Hospital, Hasdeo Area. It has been further contented that the date of birth of the petitioner as per the school leaving certificate of Class 8th, the mark sheet of Class 10th of Prayag Mahila Vidya Pith, is 07.08.1969. The date of birth of the petitioner has been incorrectly entered in service record as 31.12.1962 which was prepared in the year 1998. The petitioner for the first time came to know about the wrong entry of the date of 3 WA No.703 of 2025 birth in the year 2000 and she moved the application for correction of date of birth to the concerning authorities thereafter she sent several reminders and representations one after the another before the respondents, which was not decided. (B) She made fresh representation for rectification of the wrong entry on 17.02.2015. Thereafter the several representations dated 30.07.2016, 01.08.2016 were submitted. In furtherance of the representations the respondent issued an office order dated 17.7.2017 to refer the matter to the Age Determination Committee (ADC) to determine the age of the petitioner. In pursuance of the said order, the ADC convened on 18.7.2017 to determine the age of the petitioner. Since copy of the ADC report was not provided to the petitioner, she filed the writ petition before this Court for redressal of her grievances as WP(S) No. 5574/2020 which was
Arguments
For Respondents/ SECL : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai along with Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate 2 WA No.703 of 2025 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J 23.09.2025 1. The appellant/petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 09.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of
Decision
disposed of by this Court on 01.02.2021 (Annexure P/10) directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within 60 days. (C) In pursuance of the order passed by this Court fresh representation was submitted on 12.02.2021. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 decided the representation of the petitioner and rejected the prayer of the correction of date of birth and held that her date of birth is 31.12.1962. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has filed writ petition bearing WPS No. 4162 of 2021, 4 WA No.703 of 2025 which was also dismissed by the order impugned. Thus, the present appeal. 3. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by observing thus :- 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment in case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited (supra) to substantiate that the petitioner has raised dispute well within time and not at the fag end of her career or on eve of superannuation but was raised at earlier possible opportunity is concerned, there is no quarrel with this legal position in view of the specific facts projected by the petitioner and admitted by the respondents, therefore, the submission made by the respondents that the petitioner has filed this petition at the fag end of her career, deserves to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. 15. From the above submission and considering the law with regard to age determination particularly the fact that the petitioner was given employment on the post of General Majdoor Category-I illiterate dependent employee, she cannot turned around and pray for determining the age by constituting the Age 5 WA No.703 of 2025 Determination Committee as per the Instruction No. 76. Accordingly, it is held that the date of birth of the petitioner has been rightly recorded as 31.12.1962 in the entire service record. As such, the Point emerged for determination is answered against the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for in this writ petition. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 4. The writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/ petitioner reiterating the same plea challenging the order dated 09.06.2025 passed in WPS No. 4162 of 2021 and praying for correction of his date of birth in the service records. 5. (a) Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant/ petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner does not suffer from any inordinate delay and laches and when the petitioner came to know about the wrong entry and manipulation in her service record in the year 2000 then she forthwith moved the application for correction of date of birth before the Management of the respondent-company to the concerning authorities. He would submit that the petitioner was granted compassionate appointment in lieu of the services of her deceased husband but 6 WA No.703 of 2025 she has never signed any paper/form as the token of acceptance. It has been further contended that the appointment order does not contain the date of birth of the petitioner and only a tentative age has been mentioned as 34 years, which is not conclusive piece of evidence and the actual date of birth was required to be determined by the respondents-authorities through the ADC, which was done subsequently in the year 2017 and the report of the ADC also came in favour of the petitioner stipulating the actual date of birth of the petitioner to be 07/08/1969 even then the respondents recorded the incorrect date of birth without any basis or documentary entries as 31/12/1962 which has been recorded without any material as such it is illegal. It has been further contented that she was never subjected to the medical examination of Age Determination Committee, therefore, all the entries have been made completely ex-parte and in arbitrary manner, apart from this the so called Age Determination Committee has determined the age without the consent of the petitioner. So far as the allegation is being made by the respondents that the institute from where the petitioner obtained the testimonials has neither any recognition from Govt. of Uttar Pradesh nor from the Government of India is concerned, learned counsel would submit that the correct position is that the Prayag 7 WA No.703 of 2025 Mahila Vidyapeeth is recognized by the State of Bihar and the said certificate is valid and would pray for allowing the writ petition. (b) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the nomination of the petitioner dated 21.05.1998, in the column of the guardian the name of the elder brother namely Arvind Singh is mentioned and his age is given as 30 years, which goes to show that the version of the petitioner is correct. The entry of date of birth on the part of SECL as 31.12.1962 is completely arbitrary and without any documentary evidence and there is tampering in the date of birth mentioned in Form B by putting date in the entry. He would further submit that the petitioner has passed the matriculation examination in December, 1986 from Prayag Mahila Vidyapeeth which is recognized by the Board of Education, Bihar as such, she is a literate employee, therefore, her age should have been assessed by the Age Determination Committee as per Implementation Instruction No. 76. He would further submit that she has submitted School Leaving Certificate issued by District Education Superintendent Begusrai dated 18.07.2000 in which also her date of birth has been mentioned as 07.08.1969 as such, the date of birth recorded by the respondent as 31.12.1962 is illegal. To substantiate his submission, he would refer to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. & others Vs. Chhota Birsa {(2014) 8 WA No.703 of 2025 12 SCC 570}, State of Orissa Vs. Dr. Bina Pani Devi & others {AIR 1967 SC 1269} & Sukalu Ram Vs. Union of India & others {SCC Online M.P. 2010 Page No. 437}. therefore, the impugned order may be set aside, and the appeal may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/SECL would submit that the petitioner has not filed any document which has been issued prior to her appointment to demonstrate that her date of birth is 07.08.1969. He would further submit that in the appointment letter as well in the Form B Register her date of birth has been recorded as 34 years as on 31.12.1996 and which has been accepted by the petitioner, as such, at the fag end of her service career she cannot claim change of her date of birth in the service record. He would further submit that the petitioner was given dependent employment treating to be illiterate dependent now at the fag end of career, she intended to be treated as literate dependent which cannot be considered and would pray for dismissal of the writ appeal. To substantiate his submission he would refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ramesh Chandra Shah vs. Anil Joshi {AIR 2023 SC 1613}, Seema Ghosh vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. {2006 (7) SCC 722}, Pandu vs. C.M.D. {AIR Online 2019 MP 592} and Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Shyamkishore Singh {AIR 2020 SC 940}. The impugned order is reasoned and speaks about the deliberation on 9 WA No.703 of 2025 the part of the petitioner, and the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is admitted fact that the husband of the petitioner died while in service on 12.05.1995 and thereafter the petitioner applied for dependent employment and was appointed in terms of National Coal Wage Agreement. 9. Upon bare perusal of documents, it transpires that after her appointment and when she came to know about the discrepancy in regard to her wrong entry of date of birth in the concerned service record, the petitioner has raised dispute well within time and not at the fag end of her service career or on eve of superannuation but was raised at earliest possible opportunity. 10. Further perusal of the documents shows that the appointment order of the petitioner does not mention the date of birth of the petitioner and only mentions that she is appointed as General Mazdoor, Category-I. It is pertinent to mention that before the appointment, the petitioner has submitted the Attestation Form, in which in the Column 10, she was required to mention details of her educational qualification showing place of education with years in school and colleges. The petitioner mentioned only regarding her 10 WA No.703 of 2025 Vidya Vinondani (Matriculation) Examination as passed out from Prayag Mahila Vidyapith, Allahabad in 1985. The claim of petitioner for dependent employment was considered and sanction for employment of petitioner was conveyed in which it was specifically mentioned that "the age recorded in the Official documents of the deceased employee Janardhan Singh is contrary to the proposal, affidavit and other documents etc. of the female dependent, therefore, the same will not be taken as the correct date of birth and treated her as illiterate female dependent i.e. those who are below Matriculate and opined that in such case, the age of the female dependent is to be determined by the Special Age Determination Committee consisting of Area Medical Head, Area Personnel Head, Area Finance Head and Stall Officer (M) to the CGM/GM of the Area. Accordingly, she was advised to be present in the Office of Dy. Chief Medical Officer Hasdeo Area on 31.12.1996 at 10:00 am for determination of her age. After completion of official formalities the appointment letter dated 12.05.1997 was issued to the petitioner offering appointment as General Mazdoor Category-I. 11. Thereafter, repeated representation were made by the petitioner for correction of her date of birth and after due consideration, the the Age Determination Committee was constituted for determining the age of the petitioner. The report of ADC reads as under:- 11 WA No.703 of 2025 “ In view of the above and on the following grounds the date of birth 07.08.69 recorded in the mark-sheet dated 12.07.86 of Vidyavinodini (Matriculation) Exam 1985 shall be treated as correct and final. 1. The mark sheet dated. 12.07.86 of Vidyavinodini (Matriculation) Exam 1985 was issued prior to her date of appointment. 2. She has declared her date of birth as 07.08.1969 in the attestation form dated 28.01.1997 submitted while applying for employment. 3. The age recorded as 34 years in IME Form 'O' dated 17.05.97 was written after strucking off 29 years written earlier and the same was not signed by any official authenticating such correction. 4. The instant case falls under Clause A(i) of Annexure-I to 1.1 of NCWA-III. Accordingly, Age Determination Committee determined the date of birth of Smt Sudha Devi as 07.08.1969 (Seventh August Nineteen Sixty Nine) subject to verification of the said certificate.” 12. The Implementation Instruction provides for determination/verification of age of employee of illiterate/literate 12 WA No.703 of 2025 employees. The Instruction No. 76 provides that in case of existing literate employees, the age is to be determined according to matriculation certificate or higher secondary certificate issued by recognized university or board or by middle class certificate issued by board of education and/or department of Public Instruction and the admit card issued by the aforesaid bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said university/ board/ institution prior to the date of employment. So far as illiterate person, the age should be determined as per Clause C of the Instruction which provides constitution of Age Determination Committee/ Medical Board. This Clause further provides that in case of the employee whose date of birth cannot be determined in accordance with the procedure mentioned in B (i)(a) or B(i)(b). The date of birth recognized in the records of the company namely Form B register, C&PF records and Identity Cards is to be treated 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 . 13. Considering the aforesaid rules, it is clear that the decision of the Age determination committee/ Medical Board will be final for determination of the age of the employee. In the present case the ADC has determined the date of birth of Smt Sudha Devi as 13 WA No.703 of 2025 07.08.1969 (Seventh August Nineteen Sixty Nine) subject to verification of the said certificate. Regarding verification of the said certificate Annexure P-7. It is noteworthy to mention here that the petitioner has passed the matriculation examination in December, 1986 from Prayag Mahila Vidyapeeth which is recognized by the Board of Education, Bihar as such, she is a literate employee, therefore, her age should have been assessed by the Age Determination Committee as per Implementation Instruction No. 76. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the aforesaid facts and thus the writ appeal deserves to be allowed. 15. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the instant writ appeal is allowed and the date of birth of the petitioner is corrected and is to be recorded as 07.08.1969 as determined by the ADC. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ Gowri