Elpula Bhoomaiah v. Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd

nstitution of lndia praying that in the therewith, the High Court maY be , more particularly one in the nature of rds pertaining to the Date of Birth titioner as 23.06.1959 and retirement edings No.KGM/PER/ 3'l /2838, Dated ct the Respondents - Organization to ner Dated 04.03.1 963 in his Service School Records c) To continue the tire from the services on attaining the with all consequential benefits and laring the action of the Respondents d iscriminatory, void, violative of the ment from time to time, law laid down by the Hon'ble Courts and also violative of the Article 1 4, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 4079 OF 2016) 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 direct the Respondents - Organization to continue the Petitioner in his service by suspend the operation of the Proceedings No.KGl\,'llPER/31/2838, Dated 28.09.2015 issued by the Respondent No.2 herein Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. A. K. JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI P. SRI HARSHA REDDY (sc FoR STNGARENT COLLTERTES CO.LTD) The Court made the following: ORDER I , n I I t I I I I I t, I I I I t i I I HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE NA ESH BTIEEMAPAI(A WRIT PETITION No. 3 08 0F 2016 ORDER: Petitioner's case is that he was appointed as Badli Filler on 12.10.1982 and was Pro ted to the post of General Mazdoor on 01.O6.1986 and worki g as such. It is stated, as per school records, his date of birth s 04.03. 1963, therefore, he has to be retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation at 60 Years on 31.

3.2023, however, he came to know recently that he had bc rctiring with effect from

30.06.20 19. He brought to the no ce of this Court the order dated 19.O6.2008 in Writ Petition o 12642 of 2008 wherein respondents were directed to treat the SSC certificate as the basis for determination of date ol bi th. Writ Appeal No. 1621 of 2OO8 preferred thereagainst was dismissed by order dated

19.06.2OO8 and accordingly, respon ents implemented the said order in respect of petitioner therein It is stated, Petitioner so hled Writ Petition No 16584 of 2012 seeking directions respondents to incorPorate the date of birth as O4.03.1963 in h s service records, as Per the school records. .This Court const red the said Writ Petition along with Writ Petition No. 33343 f 2Ol2 artd batch and uide 2 judgment dated 31.O3.2O15 observed that'it shall however be open to respondents to get every certificate produced by the petitioners vcrihed on their own. It is clarified th:r r composition of thc Apex Medical Board would be as per I he settlement arrived at l)ctween the company and the recognised employees union, if one such settlement is available. Thereafter, petitioner submitted :r detailed representation dated '28.O4 .2O15 to consicler his case for continuation up to 3l .O3.20'23 by treating his dzrte of birth as 04.03.1963, however, through proceedings dated 28.O9.2O15, the 2",r respondent informed that according to the decision of the Apex Mcdical Board, his dart: of retiremcnt would be 30.06.2019.

2. Leaned counsel for petitioner Sri A.K, Jal,aprakash Rao submits that his client's transfer certificate, driving licence and Aadhar Card and the declaration submitrecl to Coa[ Mines Provident Fund reflect the date of birth as 04.03 1963, however, the respondent Organisation, withouL any basrs, havc issued the order dated 28.O9.2015 retiring him on 30.06.201S. According to learned counsel, the respondent organisation issue<l Circular dated 23.12.2OO3 for implcrnentation of + guidelines and instructions in the JBCCI uide Instruction No. 76 regarding procedure for determination / verihcertion of age of i ], I I I J i) employee s i.e. in the case of e ployees who have pursued studies in a recognised educatio al institutions, the date of birth recorded in the school leavin certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the sa e will not be altered under any circumstance. It is argued at respondent organisation delayed in disclosing the date of bi h as assessed by them. In a catena of judgments, the Hon'trle Courts held that where an employee agitating for the Past 30 ars for the correction of his date of birth on the basis of e certificate from school, correction as requested should be ade. It is further contended that at the fag end of his servi as much as an emploYee cannot seek to alter to his advan e his date of birth so also the employer. In support of his conte tions, learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble upreme Court in General Mdnager, M/s Barsua Iron O Mines a. Vice President tlnited Mines Mqzdoor Unionl, a Court of this State in Boddu that of the composite High mi Rajrrm o. Sin,gareni Collieries Co, Ltd., Kot Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd-3, B B. Korno,ro'iqh rt. The t Coking Coal Limited llJl,lBis'.;:,, ' 1992(2) ALT t98 I I i I I L i 4 i^!{ !. Chhota Birsa Uranufi, premlata Deui a. Central CoalJield.s Ltd,s, The Singareni Coflieries Co. Ltd. o. B. Venkatesutarlu6, Elpula Bhoomaiah v. Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd.7, W.P.No. 3754t of 2OtO, W.p.No. 29451 of 2OO9, I.A.No. 1 of 2019 in Writ Appeal No. 6Z5 oJ 2O79, d.ated

25.11.2O21, W.P.No. 6972 of 2011, dated.26.03.2012.

3. The General Manager hled counter. on behalf of Lhe respondents staling that petitioner initially u,as appointed as Badli Filler on 12.10.1982 and his date of birth as per company records is 26.O2.1995. lt is stated that petitioner did not produce any evidence in proof of his date of birth at the time of his appoinrment, hence, he was directed to Initial Medical Examinatior-t as per Mines Rules, 1955 for age assessment where his date of birth was assessed as 24 vears as on O3.O9.1982. The age /date of birth recorded in servicc records is furnished hereunder:

1. IME Fonn 24 ycars as on 03.09. l9g2 2. Service Book 24 years as on 03.09.19g2 3. B-Register 24 years as on O3.09.19g2 4.CMPF Form A - O3.O9.1958 5. Pension nornination Form self declaration in pS_3 & pS 4 Oi:1.09 1958 ' (20t4) l2 scc j7o \oe (.1) r-LJ 8- " W.A.No. t62 t ,rl 2008 ' zo t r 1ot eLo :,r,1 ! I i i 5 It is also stated, Imple entation Instruction No. 76 of JBCCI prescribed procedure for determination of age at the time of appointment, as narrated in Writ Petition No. 16584 of 201 the counter. Pctitioner hled ro direct respondents to incorporate the date of birth date

04.03.1963 in his service records as per the entries made i school records. This Court uide comrnon order dated 31.03.2 15 directed the resPondent company to send Petitioner fo medical examination to determine his age. Pursuant there , petitioner ',l,as examined by a panel of doctors on 12.06.2 15, and he u'as advised to attend before the APex Medical Bo d for assessment of age on

23.06.2015. The APex Board, ta ing into. consideration the guidelines communicated bY JB CI No. 76, and the age assessed by the Panel of docto S comprising occuPational Health Specialist, Dental Surgeon, diologist, O ph thalmologist, ENT Surgeon and OrthoPaedic Su eon, determined the age of petitioner as 56 years as on 23.06 O 15, conf-rrming the date of birth recorded in comPanY re s i.e. 24 Years as on

03.09.I982. This respondent denie the contention of Petitioner that he submitted X class TC as P of of age issued bY School authorities showing the date of birt as 04.O3.1963 at the time of his, r:rjtial appointment. He never approached at anY time the Area Age Determination Committe as per JBCCI guidelines 6 applicable to him for review of age/date of birth. It is stated that in statutorl' forms such as CMPF Form A, Pensjon Nomination PS-3, PS-4 petitroner rnade self declaration of his date of birth as 03.09.1958 but not mentioned DOB as per school leaving certificate.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for rcspondent Organisation Sri P. Sriharsha Reddy submits that the request for change of date of birth in service records rLt the vergc of retircment ts not sustainzrble and also even if there is good evidence to establish that the recorded dal<: of birth is erroneous, correction cannot be claimed as a matler of right. To justify his contention, he placed reliance on various judgments in State of Mad.hga Prad.esh a pretnlal Shriucss, RoIIa Sathaiah u. SCCIP, Bharqt Coking Coal Limited u. Shuam Kishore Singhlo, Karnatakc Rural Infrastructure Detnloptnent Ltd.. V. T.P. Natarajatl, Kambam Venkata Rolo u. Chairman ond. Managing Director, SCCLlz, K.Kutnarasuamg a. Regional Manager, AIS,R,Ifls, Bur-n ' 120 t l.y 9 scc or,.r n zota 1o; nlo or,o 1oa.y 'o 12ozo) 3 scc +rt '' (zo2l ) scc 2r r'? 2O2z scc Ontine.t'S 2639 " zoz:1t ; at-t ;:: l I Standard Co. Ltd a. Din nd.hu Majumdartt .and. Secretary and Commissioner a. Kirubakranls. 5 Petitioner rests his case on School Leaving Certihcate wherein his date of bir was show4 as 04.03.1963, whereas the respondent Organisati n submits that at the time of his initial appointment, petition has not submitted such a certificate as proof of age issued d he never approached at any time the Area Age Determinati n Committee as per JBCCI guidelines applicable to him for re iew of ageldate of birth. If thc date 04.03.1963 is Presumed to be correct, there is no expianation from petitioner whY i statutory forms such as CMPF Form A, Pension Nominatio PS-3, PS-4, he made self- declaration of his date of birth as O

09.1958. In the earlier Writ Petition No. 16584 of 2Ol2 ltled bY etitioner, from the order, it could be seen that at the ti e when they sought for employment, they did not have ed cational certificates readilY with them to support their claim recording the correct date of birth in the service records. Thi Court, keeping in view the fact the company is also consclou of this perennial problem and has been evolving various methods for PurPoses of overcoming the difficulties encoun red in this regard, mooted '' 1t99s;t scc t7z 15 ( 194) supp (l) SCC 155 8 ( the idea of allorving petitioners therein to be subjected to a mediczLl ex:rmination all over afresh by the doctors of the respondent company. I t is in that circumstance, petitioner was examined b1' the Panel of Doctors and the Apex Medical Board which determined the age / date of birth as 24 years as on 03.09.1982 as recorded in the company records. Hcnce, the age determined b1, the respondent Organisation cannot be said to be lncorrcct

6. Herc, it is pertinent to note that lau, on this aspect is no more res integra. The Hon,ble Supreme Court in [email protected] Rural Infra,strucAre Development Ltd.'s case (supra), helcl the lau' on change of date of birth as under: (i) Application for change of date of birth can only be as per the relevant provision s / regulatior.rs appticable; (ii) Iiven if thcre is cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right; (iii) Application can lr rejected on the ground of dclar and laches also more particularll. whcn it is made at the fag-end of sewice ancl / or r,,,hen the enlployee is about to retire on attairring the age oI su f)crarnuation. ' -

7. Recently, this Court in a sirnitar set of circumstant:cs in Writ petition No. 2223 of 2Oi7 , considering the jurclgmt:nt of the Hon,tre Supreme Court in premlal €{!ucs's cese (supro.) and Bhqrat Coking Coal Limited a, a t) Shgam Kishore Singh (atPra)' ne tived the case of petitioner therein 8 In the light of the law eclared on the subject, as stated supra, the judgments relie on by learned counsel for petitioner cannot be looked into. erefore, in the absence of any proof to show that Petitioner P oduced relevant documents in proof of his age at the time of is initial appointment and since he approached this Court on he verge of retirement, thrs Court is of the considered oPinion at Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. The Writ Petition is ccordingly, dismissed. No g. costs. 10 ConsequentlY, Miscell eous Applications, ii anY shall stand closed SD/- M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE C PYII \ H RAo A S R A K AY RAKA S P S R H Re HA RE ( D TD oP C U L J SC o ) To, on C 1 2 One CC to SRl. P COLLIERIES CO, Two CD CoPies BM GJP sEcMFFTcER P c d VO ate o U F R S N G R N E HIGH COURT DATED:2810512025 ORDER WP.No.3208 of 2016 / i) I 't 1t tlj8 2{125 (1 (' 7 .,/ i DEsp DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS