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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents determining the age/assessment without conducting medical examination conforming the date of birth of the petitioner as 10-04-1956 as illegal' arbitrary and malafide consequently set aside the Determination Committee Report d1'24-O3-2O16 and allow the petitioner to continue in service as per his actual date of birth 20-06-1957' 'i-. t.A. NO : 1OF 2016(WPMP. NO:1 6975 0 F2016) Petition under Section .151 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the operation of the impugned Age Determrnation committee Report dt'24-O3-2016 ti, they produce the originar Record i.e., rnitiar Decraration Form_, under Rule 29-B & F under Mine Rules, 1955 and Fc (initiat appointment record dt. 02-05- 1 e 76 ), pend ins . l[: I.A. NO: 20F 2016(WPMP.N O:43494 0F 2016) :::;:;;J il,::;"". Petition under Secti the aff dav t r eo,n suppjrl :: ['r:il:l::^]i ;'::::ffTT":::"j ,,; receive the Annexed No. CpF/KGMl4TlAdmlRTlA/178, dated: 25_4_2016 as additional evidence by marking as Ex p_16 in the W.p.No. 13589 of 2016. IA NO:1O F 2024 petition under section 't st cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the officiar respondents to rerease the amount of 137 days of earned reaves ,as per his retired dated 10'04.2016 pending disposal of the writ petition as petitioner is in financial problems. Counsel for the petitioner: M/s. OM LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondents: S^Rl p. SRI HARSHA REDDY (sc FOR StNGARENt coir_ienres co.LrD) The Court made the foltowing: ORDER l HON'BLE SRI JI'STICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA - WRI T PET ITI ON No. 135890F 20L6 o R D ER: This Writ Petition is hled declaring the action of ' ing the age without conducting medical resPondents in determrn examination, confirming the dale of birth of petitioner as 10.O4.1956, as illegal' Consequently' a direction is sought to set aside the Determinatron Committee Report dated 24 'O3 '2016 and ailow petitioner to continue in service as per his actual date of birth 20'06'1957 ' Petitioner's case' in brief is that he was appointed 2. as Temporary Tunnel Mazdoor in respondent Singareni Collieries Company Limited on 02'O5't976' showing his date of birth as 20'06'1957 ' At the time of his appointment' for medical examination under Rule resPondents referred him 1955. To his surprise' the ofhcers of 29-B of the Mine Rules' respondents without notice, altered his date of birth bY rounding of his original date of birth as 10'04'1956 which is record. It is stated resPondents nothing but tampering the to retire in APril 2O16, then he informed him that he had immediatelY made representatlon respondents informing his original date of birth as 20'06'1975 17 .ll.2}ll ,* 2 but there was no action. It is the case of petitioner that in all the documents, such as pAN, ID card, during the short Firing Examination under Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, his date of birth was shown as 20.06.195Z and after 3O years, respondents and their Welfare Oflicer altered the date of birth as I0.04. 1956 in the records. According to petitioner, he studied up to 6th class and he submitted Transfer Certihcate showing the date of birth as 20.06.1957. It is stated, when petitioner submitted representation for rgctification of date of birth in the service register on 17.11.2011, respondents directed him to attend before the Age Determination Committee, but because of their inaction, he fiied Writ petition No. 3g595 ol 2015 wherein this Court directed to determine the age as per law by conducting medical examination. Since the said direction was not complied with, petitioner is stated to have filed C.C.No. 453 of 2016. Thereafter, respondents mechanically came to the conclusion that they had verihed the original company records such as ID, Service record, Form-B Register, Form-A CMpF nomination and conhrmed the date of birth as 10.04.1956, but they have not verified Form-O which is required under Rule 29 B. petitioner complains that in the absence of any medical test by the J ) Medical Board' withor'rt verificatio date of birth as 10 04 1956 instead nuilifYing the right of Petitroner n of record, confirming the of 2O.O6.1957 is nothing but and intending to retire him , prematurelY 3 On behalf of resPondents' a counter was frled bY the General Manager' bringing to the noLice of this Court that as per Implementation Instruction No' 76 of the JBCCI' the procedure in determination of age /date of birth at the time of appointment in respect of iliiterates is' t[e date of birth would be determined by the Colliery Medical,ofhcer keeping in view any documentary and the relevant evidence as produced by the appointee' Date of birth as determined shall be treated as correct and the same would not be altered under any cirucmstance' It is stated' since petttionerdidnotsubmitanydocumentaryproofofhisage /date of birth at the time of his appoinLment, the then Colliery 10.04.1956 in the Initial Medical Ofhcer had assessed his age as Medical Examination Form and the age as assessed is authentic and frnal ' It is also stated that petitioner filed Writ Petition No' 38595 of 2O15 wherein this Court in WPMP No' 49682 of 2015 directed respondents to refer petitioner to medical examination irq- order to assess his age uide order dated 3O 11'2015' in t q h,. 4 compliance therewith, respondents advised petitioner by giving seven days notice uide letter dated 1g.03.2016 informing the date and time of medical examination all over fresh by the doctors of SCCL at the first instance to determine his age. Accordingly, he was examined by a panel of doctors on 19.O3.2O16, thereafter, he was advised to attend before the Apex Medical Board for """.""-..rt of his age on 24.03.2016, petitioner attended the Board which determined his age as above 60 years as on 24.03.2016, hence, the date of birth recorded in the company recorcis as 1O.04.1956 was conlirmed and the same was informed to petitioner. It is stated that accordingly, petitioner retired from service ol- respondent company on 30.04.2016 and all retirement benefits were paid to him. According to this respondent, in M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd v. Shgam Kishore Singht, the Honble Apex Court referring to various judgments held that the request for change of date of birth in service records at the fag end ol service is not sustainable and also even if there is good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is erroneous, correction cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Since petitioner hled this Writ Petition at the fag end of service for correction of his date of birth, the same is not maintainable under law. ' (2020) i scc ,1 I j '------/ 5

4. "t':::' Aniaiirl.IWrit ""ill:':; Heard M/s Om Law Firm on **,' They relied on the judgment o[ Division Bench of this Court trt The singareni c"ttii"at' "o*o*o...-.j1:,t-." [ Appeal No' 23 of 2020)' Writ Pett of 2018 and the judgment of the Hon'lcle Supreme Court in LiJe of lndia a' R' Basaoa'* -^::' heard Ms' Bhavani' counsei representlng hence' the then :" :"-'--:-t:'::r:'=::: Insurance Cor9orrz.tion behalf o{ respondents' Sri P Sriharsha Reddy' learned Standing Counsel' From the m1:eriar s. petitioner did not submit any documentary / date of birth at ttre /ime of his appoinffnent' collierY Medical offrcer had "":=::-:,^":t:1n"irl:t:: 10'04'1956 in the lnitial Medicai Examinatrot as assessed is authentic and iinal Further' pursuant to the direcdon issrred bY this Court in the earlier Writ Petition' by a panei of doctors on 19 03'2016' petitioner *t" ""trn"'"O g621d' which following due thereafter' by the Apex Medical procedure' determined his aBe as above 6o years as on the date of birth recorded in the comPanY records as 1O'o4' 1956 was confirmed and the saflre was informed to petitioner' It is stated ttrat accordingly' petitioner retired from service of respondent company on 30'o4 2o16 and , (2016) l5 scc 781 s' 24 'O3 '2]16'hence' ; '; 6 l.e respondents all retirement benefits were paid to him. Hence, the contention of petitioner that his date of birth was tampered in the service records cannot be said to be correct. Learned counsel for petitioner relied on the order in Writ petition No. 19645 of 2Olg, wherein the learned Single Judge observed that fuhen an employee cannot seek correction of his date of birth at the fag end of his career, even the same principle applies to the respondents also cannot correct the date of birth of petitioner at the fag end of service, that too unilaterally [.ithouL giving any notice and without giving opportunilr to him'. But the said order is not applicable to the facts of this case for, petitioner hled Writ petition No. 3g595 of 2OtS wherein this Court in WpMp No. 496g2 of 2015 directed respondents to refer petiLioner to medical examination in order to assess his age uide order dated 30. 11.201S, in compliance therew,ith, respondents advised petitioner by giving seven days, notice uid.e letter dated 18.03.2016 informing the date and time of medical examination all over fresh by the doctors of SCCL at the hrst instance to determine his age. Accordingly, he was examined by a panel of doctors on 19.O3.2016, thereafter, he was advised to attend before the Apex Medical Board for assessment of his age on 24.03.2016, petitioner attended the Board which determined his ageas above 6O years as on 24.03.2016, hence, the date of 1 birth recorded in the compary records as 10'04' 1956 was conhrmed and the same was informed to petitioner' In view of the same, the judgment in Writ Appeal No 23 of 2020 also is not appiicable to the facts of this case where also' the date of changed without giving notice to the employee birth was concerned. 6 In the light of the above' this Court is of the considered opinion that Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed' 7 8 The Writ Petitiln 1S accordinglY, dismissed' No Consequently, Miscellaneous Appiications' if any shall stand closed /,TRUE COPY/I ';l,ii-FE3lL?AiH / D SECTTON OFFICER To,

1. One CC to M/s' Om Law Firm' Advocate [OPU 2. OneCC to Sri P' Sri Harsha Reddy (SC for Sing toPUCl areni Collieries CO'LTD)

3. Two CD CoPies (fr- TJ GJP I {& i 1 I HIGH COURT DATED:28 tOSt2O2S ORDER WP.No.13589 of 2016 ( "-1H S I,4 J' C U e ,., t 11il8 m oF.s.,iTCtr +t DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 0r l+ u itr$