The High Court · 2025

Judgment

2. 'l Koyyada Papaiah, S/o Mallaiah, aged about 59 years, Occ: Ex-General Mazdoor, E.C.No.0866472, No 2-1O5, Rangapur Village, Peddapally Mandal, Karimnaqar District ...pETtroNER The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Kothagudem, Khammam District. The General Manager, The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., RG-lll Area, Ramagundam, Karimnagar District. The Chief Medical Officer, Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem' Khammam District ...RES'.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records from the Respondents and issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the order passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings Ref. No. RG3/PER/PM/S 413087 , dated 06-10-2015, determining age of petitioner as 61 years as on 21{9-2015 instead of 59 years 14-07-1956 as illegal, uniust, contrary to law, perverse, in violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set-aside the same declaring that petitioner is entitled to continue in service upto 31-07-2016 treating his original date of birth as 14-07-1956. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 1698 QF 2016) Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou( may be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate and continue petitioner in service till he attains the

age of superannuation on 31-O7-2016, pending disposal of the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. K. JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents: P SRI HARSHA REDDY (SC FOR SINGARENI colltERiES CO.LTD) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G,M. MOHIUDDIN WRJT PETITION No.l35O OF 2016 ORDER: This writ petition is filed to call for records and to declare that the order passed by the respondent No.2 herein in proceedings Ref.No.RG3/PER I PM I 54 I 3O87, dated 06. 1O.2O 1 5 determining the age of the petitioner as 61 years as on

21.09.2015 instead of 59 years with date of birth reckoned as

14.07.1956 as illegal, contrary to law, unjust and perverse and to declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service up to 31.O7.2016 by considering the original date of birth as

14.o7.1956.

2. Heard Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited arrd perused the record.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein that the petitioner herein was appointed in the service of the respondent Company on 13.07.1981 as a Badli Filler and while joining the service his age was 25 years as per his educational qualilication certiflcates. ) 7

4. It is contendecl that the petitioner studied Class X from Zilla Parishad Secondary School, Julapally, Karimnagar District, which issuerl a School l,eaving Certificate on 05.09.1980 recording his date of birth as 14.O7.1956, which he had furnished prior to his appointment and, on that basis, he was under the bona fide betiel that he would retire on attaining the age of superannuation i.e., on 31.O7.2016.

5. The petitioner contends that his age was wrongly entered/altered in the service records as 27 years as on 1981 instead of 25 years as on 1981 and that his representation dated 06.O6.2O13 against the said alteration in the service records was ignored and that aggrieved by such inaction he filed W.P. No. 21249 of 2Ot3.

6. The said writ petition along with writ petitions hled by similariy placed workers, with a similar prayer, were disposed by this Court on 31.03.2O 15 with W.P.No.33343 of 2O12 as the lead case, directing the respondent to refer the matter to Apex Medical Board.

7. It is contended that the petitioner appeared before the Medical Board on 11.O9.2O15 and 21.O9.2015 and the Medical Board withoul taking into consideration the school cerlificate produced by the petitioner and without assigning any cogent J reasons continued the entries made by the authorities themselves; that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service upto 31.07.2016 reckoning his date of birth as 14.O7. 1956 (as entered in the school records)

8. Per Contro, the learned Stalding Counsel for the respondent Compa-ny stated that the petitioner did not submit any documentary proof regarding his age/date of birth at the time of initial appointment in the respondent Company. The age of the petitioner was assessed as 27 years as on 21.O5. 1981 by the Colliery Medical Officer, in the age assessment form and the same date of birth was recorded in the service records and the other statutory documents. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the date of birth recorded in the service records would be considered authentic.

9. The learned Standing Counsel further contended that as per Implementation Instmction No.76 of the Joint Bipartite Committee for Coa,l Industry (JBCCI), the procedure in determination of the age I date of birth at the time of appointment is done by determining the age at the time of appointment was as under: Procedure for determination/ uerifrcation of oge of the emplogee and for resolution of disputes cases of seruice records (A) Detennination of the age at the tim.e oJ oppointment r1 i) Matianlates: In the cose of oppointees who flaue po.ssed Matriculation or equiualent examinations, the date of birth recorded in the said certificote shnll be treated- a.s arrect date of birth and the same uill not be altered under anA ciratntstances. ii) Non- maticttlate s but educated: In the case of appointees uho haue pursued studies in a reagnized educational institution, the d.ate of birth recorded in tLe School Leauing Certificate, shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same uill not be altered under ang ciralm-stan()a-s. iii) Ex-Seruicemen: In the case of Ex-seruicemen wlw dre not maticuloteq the date of birth recorded in tle Armg Di.scharge Certificote shall be treated a.s correct date of birth and the sam.e uill not be altered uruler any circumstances- ln the ca,se of Ex- Seruicemen uho hnue possed Maticulation examiuttion, the date of birth recorded in tlrc Maticulotion Certificate will be treated- as correct date of birtL prouided they haue passed the Motriankttion examination before entering the DeJense Seruices,' othenuise the date of birth recorded in Anng Dtscharge Certificate tuill be taken as correct date of birth. iu) Illiterate: In the case of oppointees not couered under th.e foregoing clauses, the date of birth utill be determined bg the Colliery Medical OJJicer keeping in uieu.t ang doanmentary and other releuant euidence os produced bA the appointee. Date of birth as d.etermtned shall be treated o-s correct date of birth and the same uill not be altered under any ciratmstances."

10. It is further contended that for review or determining the date of birth in respect of existing employees, the following procedure is considered as per the implementation instruction No.76 which reads as under: (B) Reuieu/ determination of date of birth in respect of existing emplogees: 4 In te case of the existing emploAees Matrianlation Certiftcate or Higher Secondary Certiftcate issued by the recognized t-Iniuersities or Board or Mid.d.le pass Certificate 5 issued bg tlrc Board of Education ond/ or Departm.ent of Public Institutions and admit cards issued bg tlrc aforesaid Bodies stnuld be treated as correct prouided theg uere issued bg the said Uniuersities/ Boards,/ Instittttions prior to the date of emplogment. b) Similarly, Mining Sirdorship, Winding Engine or similar other statutory certificates u.there the Manager hnd to certifu the date of birth utill be treated" a.s auttentic Prouided that uhere both doanments mentioned in (i) (a) and (i) (b) aboue are auailable, the date oJ birth recorded in (i) (a) uill be treated as autLrcntic. Whereuer ttere is no uariation in records, such cases will not be reopened unless there is a uery glaring and apparent urong entry brought to the notice of the Management. Tle Management afier being satisfred on the meits of the case uill take appropiate action for correction through Age Detennination Committee/ Medical Boord.

11. The respondent Company contended that the petitioner neither produced the School l,eaving Certificate at the time of his appointment nor submitted any documentary evidence in support of his age during his Initial Medical Examination, on account of which, the respondent Company's Medical Officer after medical examination assessed the age of the petitioner as 27 years as on 21.O5. 1981. The said date was entered in the petitioner's service record and the petitioner herein has acknowledged his date of birth as 21.05.1954, which was duly recorded by the respondent Compaly in all its records. 6

12. It is also contended that on the basis of the date of birth entered in the records of the respondent Company i.e., 2 1.05. 1954 the petitioner herein was issued one monttr's advance intimation of due date of retirement as 31.O5.2O14 uid.e letter dated O2.O5.2O14.

13. It is further contended that the respondent Company has issued proceedings uide dated 16.O8.2O12 and displayed the date of birth of the employees as per the records of the respondent Company on notice board for information of the employees, called for remarks in case of any discrepancy and requested the employees to submit representations with supporting documents as prescribed in the JBCCI guidelines for correction of age/date of birth on or before 15.09.2012.

14. However, the petitioner has not responded to ttre above notification and the petitioner was examined by the Apex Medical Board on 21.O9.2015 as per the directions of this Court dated 31.O3.2O15 in WP No. 33343 of 2012, wherein the Board determined the petitioner's age as above 61 years as on

21.09.2015 and confirmed the age/date of birth recorded in the company's record i.e., 27 years as on 21.O5. 1981 and the same was communicated to the petitioner under the irnpugned \,. proceedings No.RG3/PER / PM / 54 / 3087, dated 06. lO.2 O 15. 7

15. F\rrther, the respondents contend that ttre peLitioner has retired from the service of the respondent Company on

31.05.2014 i.e., on attaining the age of superannuation and his narne was removed from the rolls of the respondent Company and he has submitted his claim forms and has claimed all his terminal benehts due to him.

16. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

17. In tl.e instant case, it is the case of the petitioner that he is entitled to continue his service in the respondent Company till 31.07.2016 on the basis of the school leaving certificate, wherein his date o[ birth is shown as 14.07. 1956 and the date of birth was wrongly recorded by the respondents by assessing his age as 27 years as on 21.O5.1981, instead of 25 years as on

21.O5.l981while joining the service on 13.O7.1981.

18. Further, the petitioner admittedly made his first representation seeking correction of his date of birth on O6.O6.2Of g (Ex.Ps) more than 3O years after joining the service and more than one year after the date f,rxed by the respondent Company calling for objections, and about 3 years prior to the date of his retirement on attainment of superannuation i.e., on

31.05.2014. It is clear that the represerrtation was made at fag end of his service just prior to his retirernent. { 8

19. It is pertinent to note that, in the event the petitioner had in fact submitted the alleged school certihcate, as being asserted by him, there would have been no occasion or necessit-v for the respondent Company to have referred the petitioner to the Colliery Medical Officer for the purpose of ascertaining his age. This itself shows that the petitioner did not fumish any school certificate as alleged by him at the time of joining of the service.

20. It is settled position of law that, for an employee seeking the correction of his date of birth, it is a condition precedent that he must show, that the incorrect recording of tl're date of birth was made due to negligence of some other person, or that the same was an obvious clerical error failing which the relief should not be granted to him (See.' Conmissloner oJ Police v. Bhaguon V. La.rta,net). 21 . Further, in the case of Uma Rrrm o. M/s. Bharst Colctng Coal Limite&, it was observed that the age of illiterate appointees is to be determined by the Colliery Medical Officer keeping in view any documentary and other relevant evidence produced by t1'e concerned appointees and the said date of birtl-r has to be treated as correct date of birth which cannot be altered under any circumstance. ' (1997) r scc 247 ' L.P.A.No.8 t of 2025, dntd22.08.2025 I

22. Further, the petitioner did not provide any evidence or proof on record to show that the date of birth recorded as

21.05.1954 was due to the negligence of the respondents, and the petitioners also failed to show that the date of birth was recorded incorrectly, due to want of care on the part of the respondents, despite the fact that a correct date of birth had been shown on the documents presented or signed by him.

23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Stote oJ M.P. u. Premlo,l Shrirlcss while reiterating the similar view in Bharat Coking Coa.l Limited. and others v. Shgo,m Kishsore Stzglf has held as under:

8. It needs to be emphasised that in matters inuoluinq correction of date of birTh of a qouemment seruoftt, partiatlarlu on the eue of his supe rannuation or at the faq end of hk career, the court or the tibunal ho.s to be ciranmspect, mutious and carefitl u.thile issuinq direction for correction of date of birth rearded in the seruice book a.t the time of ent4,t into ary1 qouemment seruice. Unless the court or the tribunel is fit llt t satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to hi-s date of birth and that such a cloim ts made in accordonce uith the procedure prescibed or as per the con sistent procedure adopted bu the department concemed. as the co-se mag be, and. a real injustice has been caused to tlle person atncerned, th.e court or tle tribunal should be loath to issue a direction for correction of the seruice book. Time and again thjs Court has expressed the uiew that if a qouernment seruant mnkes a request for conectian of the recorded date of birth after lapse of a lona time of his induction into the seruice, partiatlarlu beuond the time fixed bu his emplouer. he cannot claim, as a matter of rieht, the conection of his date of birTfL euen if he lus ' lzor ry I scc ooa o (zozo) : scc +t t l0 qood euidetlce to establi.sh ttnt tle recorded date of birth is clearlu efioneous- No court or tlrc tiburnl c@n colue to the ggl of thase who sleep ouer their iqhts (see Union of Indie u. Ha ntam Singh [(1993) 2 SCC 162 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 37s : (1993) 24 ATC 921 ). (emphasis supPlied)

24. It is also to be noted that an application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with keeping in view only the petitioner, as any such direction for correction of the date of birth has a chain reacLion, inasmuch as others waiting for years for their respective promotions will be affected because of the correction of the date of birth and many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose the promotion for ever [See: flome lrepartment o. R. Klrubaka,rans).

25. The Apex Court in the case of G.A. Bhdral Coking Coal Limited West Bengal u. Shib Kumtrr Dushad and otherc, by reitcrating the view taken in Burn Stzndard Co. Ltd.. v. Dinabanr,dhil Mqiundal has held as under:

22. .....The fact that an emplouee of Couernment or its instntmentalitu tuho tn_s been in seruie for ouer decodes, u'ith no obiection tuhatsoeuer raised as to hi,s date of birth accepted by the emplouer as corred, uhen all of a sudden comes forward tot ard.s tle _fag end qf his seruice career uith a uit application before the Hiqh Court seekinq correctiort of his date of birth in hi.s seruice record, the uery conduct <;f non-raising of an objection in the matter bg the 1994 supp ( l) SCC t55 r o (zooo) s scc 696 ? ( t995) 4 SCC t72 emplollee, in our uiew, should be a sufficient reason .for the Hioh Court, not to entertain such applications on grounds of aquiestrncq undue delay and laches. Moreouer, discretionaru .iurisdiction of the Hiqh Court can neuer be said to hnue been rea.sonablu and iudicialla exercised if it entertains such turit application, for no employee, uho had gieuancc a.s to hi.s date of birih in hi-s 'seruice and leaue reard.' auld lnue genuinelu utaited till the faq end of hi-s seruice ctzreer to qet it corrected bu auailinq of tte ertraordinaru .iuri-sdiction of a Hiqh Court. Th-erefore, ue taue ra h.esitation, in holdinq, tLrat ordinarilu Hiqh Courts shnuld not, in exercise of tLLeir di-scretionaru tuit iuri.sdbtion, entertain a utrit opplication/ petitbn .ftled by an emplouee of the Gouentment or its instntmentalitu, touards the fog end of his seruice, seekinq correction of hi.s date of birth entered in hi.s 'seruice and leaue record' or seraice reqister uith the auotued obiect of continuing in seruice begond the nonnal period of hi.s retirement.

26. Thus, the claim of petitioner herein to correct the date of birth cannot be permitted at the fag end of his service career to raise a dispute as regards the correctness of the entries in the service records. Furthermore, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition on 18.O1.2016 i.e., after two years from the date of retiring from the service on 31.05.20 i4, which again shows delay/laches on the part of the petitioner. 27- Further, on a perLlsal of the material on record, it is seen ) tfrat in compliance with the directions issued uide order dated

31.03.2015 in W.P.No.33343 of 2012, the petitioner was examined by the Apex Medical Board on 2I.O9.2O15, and the Apex Medical Board conclusively determined the age of the petitioner as above 6 I years and duly communicated it to the ) t2 peLitioner. The petitioner did not raise any objection at the relevant time and having failed to do so despite due notice, the petitioner is deemed to have accepted the determination by the Board, which has attained finality. Thus, the petitioner cannot now be permitted to challenge the age assessment report at this belated stage. 2a. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner's claim lor corrt:ction of date of birth cannot be considered and the change in date of birth cannot be permitted at this stage by the respondent Company. The writ petition is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed.

29. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to CoSI S Consequentiy, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. A. SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT BEGISTRAR ('.=, SECTTON OFFICER Qne C^C_ to SRt A. K JAYAPRAKAq[E4O, Advocate IOPUC] p1e -QC- Ltd., IoPUC] Two CD Copies to sRr p sRr HARSHA neobi, -slc. i6r-dingareti corieries co. I I To 1 2 3 MMT MP €r HIGH COURT DATED:2610912025 ORDER WP.No.1350 of 2016 d I i: S .r.i rt- ,/.;r,1.. I I ,;^ 2 B JAlll ?02[ t .S * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \,6 l. D\ L \)