High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ or order or directions especially one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling the records related to the medical report of Nallavelli Rajeeru, S/o Rayalingu, Aged 57 years, Occ- Ex [Vlunshi (EC, No 2412693), l.K. 1 A lNC., S.C. Company Limited, Srirampur Division, Adilabad District from 5th respondent and direct the respondents to conduct fresh medrcal test as per norms and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPM P. NO: 32420 OF 20171 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the CASE Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. K MALLIKARJUN Counsel for the Respondents: SRI p SRI HARSHA REDDY (SC FOR StNGARENT COLLTERTES CO.LTD) The Court made the following: OROER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 26142 OF 2O1? _ ORDER: Petitioner claims to have been appointed in respondent - Singareni Collieries Company Limited as a General Mazdoor at KKSA Incline, at Mandamarri on 18.9.1976, and thereafter, was promoted as a Trammer, Munshi Grade-ll, Grade-D Supervisor. He worked as Grade-l Munshi from O1.O1.2005. The grievance of petitioner is that he came to know that his date of birth was wrongly recorded by respondent authorities at the time'of appointment as 10.O9. 1954 instead of

10.O6.1958; he made an Application to the Colliery Manager of K.K 5A Incline (where he worked at that time) for rectification of date of birth as per 7ff class transfer certificate No. 3804 which was issued on 18.11.1974 by the Head Master, Z.P. High School, Bachampet, Warangal Distric[; then it was forwarded to General Manager, Mandamarri, who gave a reply dated

03.05.1996 stating that transfer certificate cannot be taken into consideration for correction of date of birth. He hled Writ Petition No. 30218 of 2O1O challenging the reply after fourteen years, which was dismissed on ground of delay and latches and thatif the Corporation takes any scheme for alteration of date of birth, his case would get attracted. 4-4 2 It is stated that pursuant to the notice dated 1O.O9.2012 issued by the respondents for alteration of date of birth, as per Circular dated 01.08.1988, petrtroner made an Application for change of date of birth along with 7ti' class transfer certilicate, but respondents considered tLLe Applications who have loth class certihcates and rejected the 7t1' class certihcate holders. As per Circular dated O1.08.1988, Implementatron Instruction 76 A (i11, employees, who are non - matriculates, transfer certificate or leaving certihcatc is sufficient for daLe of birth and shall be treated as correct datc of birth. However, respondents did not consider 7th class transfer certif rcate and issued letter dated 12.).2.2012 to retire from the company's service with effect from 30.O9.2014. In those circumstances, petitioner hled Writ Petition No. 3218 of 2014, which was disposed of on O!.O7.2O15 directing respondents to conduct medical test for confirmation oi age. Petitioner is stated to have atlended medical test on O5.O1.2016 and 14.01.2O16 but they did not conduct any test as per norms and did not glve any report and simply rejected him from servicc based on his age showing as excess; his request to furnish medical report through RTI Act was not acceded to. Hence, this Writ Petition. o J The General Manager, SRP Area hled t:ounter on 2. behalf of respondents stating that Writ Petition is not maintainable on the ground of latches' The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena cases held that disputes regarding changc of date of birth cannot be entertained in the fag end of service' tt is stated with efect from that Petitioner retired from his servlces According to this O1.10.2014 and received all terminal benefits respondent, ImPlementation Instruction No.76 of the Joint Bipartite Committee for Coal Industry laid down procedure for determination of agel date of birth at the time of appointment or in respect of existing employees' It is also stated that evcry person while entering into service shall declare his age/date of birth by submitting valid education and age proof' [n case of new appointees who are literates, SSC/ Matriculation Certil'icate or its equivalent examinations is the valid proof The date of birthasrecordedinthesaidcertificatewillbeadoptedwithout any modification in the service records of the Company and Lhe same cannot be altered under any circumstances lf the neu' appointee joins as illiterate, the Date of Birth will tre dete rmined by the Colliery Medical Ofhcer by conducting necessary examinations and the same will be entered in the service records t L 4 It is stated that Petitioner joinec Respondent Company as an illiterate and did not submit any valid proof of Date o[ Birth ar the time of his joining, hence, he rt'rts re lerred to Colliery Medical Officer u,ho assessed the age as'.121 years as on

10.09.1976 and his Date of Birth was recorded in the Initial Medical Examination (lME) report (Form-O) as 1O.09.1954. Petitioner acknowledged the same and voluntarily affixed his thumb imprcssion on the IME and Age AssessmonL Forms and thc same wus rccordcd in his service particulars. His age/date of birth recorded in various records are furnished here under:

1. Initial Medical Examination-Form-O-22 years as on I0.09.1976 2. Age Assessment Report 22 years as on 10.09.1976 3. Age entered in Identity &Service card 22 years as or.r 10 09.1976 4. Office {)rder cmpanelling Not placed in his personal llle Date o[ Birth Nil

5. Age as per B Register 22 years as on 1O.O9.1976 - Drrte of Birth 6. Pensi()n Nomination Forms: Forms PS. 3 and PS 4) - 10.09.1954 Date oi B:r1h

7. Emplol'tt Personal Record (EPR) 10.09. i954 Date ol tlirth It is further stated that Petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 32 18 of 2013 which was disposed of uide common order in Writ Petition No. 33343 of 2012 and batch of cases and pursuant to the direction issued there:in, petitioner was directr:cl to appear before the Apcx Medic zrl tsoard on

05.01.2016 and 14.O1.2O16, after examination, he was assessed ) as 60 as on I4.01.2016, as such his date of birth was approved as 22 years as on I0.09.1976. lt is also stated that date of birth of Petitioner was updated in service records and he was retired from services with effect from O 1 . 1O.2014 after attaining the age of superannuation. It is stated further. that since there is no variation in the entries of his age/date of birth as recorded in the records of the Respondent ilompany and the finding of Apex Medical Board, as he was appointed in the services of Company as an illiterate and did not submit any documents at the time of his appointment, his request for altering date of birth does not merit any consideration, hence the age recorded in the records of the Respondent Company holds good. It is therefore, contended that Writ Petition is liable for dismissal on the ground of Res Judicato.

3. Heard Sri K. Mallikarjun,. learned counsel for . petitioner as well as Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent.

4. Petitioner's case is that he submitted 7ft class Transfer Certil-rcate but the same was not considered by the respondents. Whereas, the respondent Organisation submits that at the time of his initial appointment, petitioner had not submittcd such a certificate as proof of age and since he joined 6 Respondent Company as an illiterate and did nrtt submit any o valid proof of date of birth, he was referred Lo Coliiery Medical Officcr ',r,ho assessed his age as 22 years as on 10.09. 1976 and his Date of Birth \ ras recorded in the Ilririal Medical Examination (lME) report (Form-O) as 1O.09.1954. Petitioner acknowledgr:d the same and voluntarily afhxed his thumb impression on thc IM E and Age Assessment F,rrms and the same was rt:corded in his service particulars. Furlher, the Apex Medical Board assessed his age as 6O as on 14.01.2016, as such his clate of birth rvas approved as 22 years as on

10.09.1976. Accordingly, the date of birth of p,'titioner was updated in service records and he retired frc,nl service on Ol.lO-2014 after attaining the age of superannuation.

5. Petitioner, admittedly, joined sen'ice of the respondent Company in 1976. He made an Application to the Colliery Manager of K. K 5A lncline (where he rvorked at that time) for rectihcation of date of birth as per 7th t:lass lransfer certilrcate No. 3804 which was issued on 18.11.1974 by the Head Mastr:r, Z.P. High School, Bachampet, Warangal District; then it was forwarded to General Manager, Mandamarri, who gave a repJy dated 03.O5. i996 stating that transfer certihcate cannot be taken into consideration for correct.ion of date of 7 birth. He hled Writ Petition No. 3O218 of 2010 challenging the reply after fourteen years, which was dismissed on ground of delay and latches and that if the Corporation takes any scheme for alteration of date of birth, his case would get attracted. F.rom the reply, it is clear that nearly after 20 years of his induction into service, he attempted to rectify his date of birth, which, by no standards, can be held to be reasonable, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sto:te of M.p. o. prernlal Shriuqsr. Further, when petitioner had opportunit5r to rectify at the time of IME, he did not avail the same and he put his thumb impression acknowledging the date of birth mentioned therein, hence, just prior to his retirement, filing representation seeking change in the date of birth, cannot be entertained at the fag end of service after accepting the same to be correct during entire service, as has been held in Bharat Coking Coal Limited u. Shgam Kishore Singhz. l I

6. Here, it is pertinent to note that law on this aspect is no more res integra. The Hon,ble Supreme Court in Kantrrtaka Rural Infrastructure Deoeloptnent Ltd.'s case (supra), held the law on change of date of birth as under: 'izottyesccooa rlzozol:scc+tt l I I , ! o (i) Application for change of date of birth can only be as per the relevant .) provisions / regulations applicable; (ii) Even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot I)e claimed as a matter oI right; (iii) Application can be rejected on the ground of delay and laches also more particularly when it is made at the fag-end of service and / or r\,hen the employec is about to retire on atta.rning the age of superannuation. '

7. In the light of the larv declared on the subject, as stated supra, in the absence of any proof to show r-hat petitioner produced relevant documents in proof of his age at the time of his initial appointment and since he approached this Court on the verge of retirement, this Court is of the considered opinion that Writ Petition is liaple to be dismissed.

8. COStS.

9. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No Consequently, Miscellaneous Apphcations, if any shall stand closed //rRUE coPY/t sD/- L' LAKSHMI-B-^P, DEPUTY REGISTRAR kD sEcrtdN oFFlcER I I To, I 2 J. KKS GJP One CC to SRI One CC to SRI co.LTD) [OPUC] K MALLIKARJUN Advocate [OPUCI P SRI HARSHA REDDY (SC FOR SINGARENI COLLIERIES Two CD CoPies {t' F: r:" B;,',e-' ' '! 'f, ' frlA j'liir- 3' "ar :f ' t': ' HIGH COURT DATED:2810512025 ORDER WP.No.26142 of 2017 I a , '\,. .,: .-a -)\ ' t/a (i ,e t 01 tl0'J 2l[l L /-l r;7r 11;' tf.'f DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS U' h 7 L\