High Court · 2025

nstitution of lndia praying that in the rewith, the High Court may be pleased >ecially one in the nature of Writ of ondents in treating the petitioners date ;eeking to retire him from service w.e-f. nsequently direct the respondents to 31-05-2027, duly granting all other lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thr: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner beyond 31-10-1101g, pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. PAVAN KUMAR ADITYI\ I\IALLADI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI P SRI HARSHA REDtDI'(SC FOR STNGARENt COLLTERiES CO.LTD) The Court made the following: ORDER , HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A WRIT PETITION No. 2 555 0F 2019 OR DER: The case of petitioner is that he passed SSC in March, 1983 and u,as appointed in the 1st respondent Singareni Collieries Company Limited on 19- 12- 1985. As per the SSC certiflcate, his date of birlth is 14-05- 1967 and he is entitled to be continued in service up to 31-05-2027, however, it was wrongly entcrcd in service rfecords as 26 years as on O1-11 1985, as a result, he was forced to retire effective from U.-lI-2Olg. Petitioner is thereforg, stated to have submitted several represe ntations right from 15-05- l gag, rc)O.2O12, 07 .O4 .2O 16 duly cnclosing the copies of SSC certihcate and the authorities assured him that his grlevance would be resolved in due coursc of time. During 20 17, the 4th respondent asked him to submit original SSC Certitjcate' apcordingly, he submitted the same and thereafter, his represen(ation was forwarded to the oflrce of thc 3'd respondent, who, uide letter dated 27-Og-2ola directed the 4tr'respondent to send briSinal SSC memo, so as lo refer thc same to the Board of Secondary Education, Hyderabad, for ascertaining its gerfuineness. At that juncture, the 4tr, respondent sent his original SSC memo to the ofhce of thc "rtr respondcnt for changc of his date of birth in the ( \. 1 \ ! Employee Personnel Record uide letrer dated 30 08 2019. Despite, so far, nothing resulted positively. Horvever, in turn, a notice was displayed on the noti<:e board s[ating that petitioner would be retiring from service from O I 1 1 2010. Hcncc, he approached this Court. According to petitioner, as per Irnplementation Instruction No.76, date of birth oi [he existing e mployees has to be reviewed as per SSC Certihcate issued pric,r to [he date of initial appointment. Admittedly, he passed SS(l rruch prior to the date of initial appointment, therelore, his clate of brrth has fo be corrected as 1,4-05-1967 instead of 216 vears as on 01-11-1985 and that he is am entitled to be conlirued in service up to 37-05-2027. 2- The General Manager of the Responclent Company fi1ed the counter to the effect that petitioner was appointed in the respondent Company as lladli Filler underground on 20-12-1985 and subsequently, was promoterl as SDL/LHD Operator and posted to work at KTK-S incline. At the time of his initial appointment, he did not submit any prcof pertaining to his age/date of birth. As per [he rules of the respondent company, he was referred to Colliery Medicral Oflicer who assessed his age as 26 years as on O 1 - 1 1- 1985 an,l accordingly, J petitioner's date of birth was rec rded as 01 11 1959 in the q Initial Medical Examination Report (Form-O) and the same was accepted by petitioner by putting h i]s thumb impression and his date of birth was recorded as 01-1 1 1959 in service Book and other statutory records. He retired lr()m servlce on attalnlng age of superannuation on O1-11-201 I It is contended that petitioner filed this Writ Petition at fhe fag end of service on 28- lO-2O19 ie. 3 days prior to his datQ of retirement for correction of date of birth and Lhe same wa5 not permitted under law, hence, Writ Petition is liable to be dipmissed. l This respondent deniqd the fact that petitioner submitted several representation right from 15-05- 1989 onwards and reiterated his reques on several occasions duly t enclosing the copies of SSC celft ihcate It is stated that petitioner was issued the letter datei

31.12.20 12 confirming his date of birth as per company .d.ords as 26 vears as on O1.11.1985 and he would re trre from the services of the company on 31.10.2019 which was duly acknowledged by him and he had not questioned the s{me and the same became final. It is also stated that representation submitted by petitioner dated 21 02-2016 was e{amined by the respondent company and the letter dated 18-0412016 was issued informi ng I \'-ii to submit the reasons for not disclosing the fircr,s pertaining to educational qualifications by producing the [iSC certificate at the time of his initial appointment and lor n,rt utilizing the opportunity given by the management earlier through circular dated 27-03-1990 for correction of date of birth. Petitioner, without giving any explanation/ reasons to the above said letter and also without disclosing the above mention,:d facts, fi1ed this Writ Petition and on the other hand, stLbrnitted another representation dated 22-70 2Ol9 for correction of date of birth and the same was considered and the order daterl 07-11-2079 w was issued. After his retirement, petitioner approached the corporate office and made representation dat::d 04 06 2021 which was lorwarded to the General Manage r, Bhupalpally, it was informed to the Colliery Manager, KTK CC III Project uide letter dated 14-09-2021 and the same v/a l informed to petitioner uide letter dated O2-O7 2O2l and 2I-O9 2O2l that no age disputes which were raised within one yezrr of the due date of retirement would be entertained as per Circular dated rc-oa-2012. It is further stated that petitioner ''vas issued letters dated 30 71 2O2O and 3O-O6-2O2 1 to approach lhe respective mine authorities for settlement of his [<:rrninal benehts, - 5 however, he did not turn up till date. The management is ready to process and settle all his termindl benefits upon submission of Application by petitioner. . It is brought to the nltice of this Court that the Hon'ble Supreme Court u'hile disposing Civit Appeat No. 1009 of 2O2O held that petitioner's rcquest tp change his date of birth at the fag end of service is not Lenable and quashed the order dated 13.10.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 6172 of 2Ol4 and ord r dated 19.O2.2O19 passed q by the Division Bench in LPA No. 115 of 2018 of High Court of Karnataka. Hence the above Writ Pbtition filed by petitioner is not maintainable under la'*' an{ the same liable to be dismissed. Heard Sri M.P.K. Adiltya, learned counsel for 3. petitioner. He reiterated the contqntions raised in the writ affidavit and in support of his case, relied on the judgments of this Court in Writ Petition No. 17203 of 2OO7 and a Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 1 1 40 of 2O | 8. 4 Ms. A. Bhavani, counsel representing Sri P. Sriharsha Reddy, learned Standin[ Counsel for respondents submits that three days prior td his date of retirement, 6 --li petitioner approached this Court and at the fag e:rd o[ service, he cannot seek to alter his date of birth

5. As is evident from the material c n rccord, it is evident that at the time of his initial appointmen t, pt:titioner did not submit any proof pertaining to his age/date ol birth. As per the rules of the respondent company, he was rel:rred to Collicry Medical Officer rvho assessed the age as 2t5 years as on 01-11-1985 and accordingly, date of birth was rccorded as O1-11-1959 in the Initial Medical Examination Ileport (F'orm-O) and the same was accepted by pt:titioner by putting his thumb impression; accordingly, the same was recorded in Scrvice Book and other statutory records. He retired from sen'ice ot).lttaining age of superannuation on O1-11-2019. Petitione- v.'as issued the letter on 31.12.2012 confirming his date ol birlh as pcr company records as 26 years as on 01-11-1985 and that he would retire from service on {}1-1O-2019 brt hc had not questioned the same and the same became final. Frrrther, on the representation submitted by petitioner date<[ 2l O2-2O16, respondent company issued letter dated 18-04-2,i16 informing him to submit the reasons for not disclosing the facts pertaining to educational qualihcations by producing the S StJ c(:rt i[icat(] at the time of his initial appointment and for no. ul.ilizing thc 7 opportunify given by the managemqnt earlier through Circular dated 27 -O3 1990 for correction o[ date of birth. Petitioner, without giving any explanation / reasp n s to thc abovc said letter and also without disclosing the above mcntioned facts, hled this Writ Petition and on the other hand, submitted another representation dated 22-lO-2019 fot correction of date of birth and the same was considered and order dated 07.11.2O19 was issued. After retirement also, on pctitioner's rcpresentation dated 04-06-2021, he was informcd uide lctters dated O2-O7 -2021 and 27.O9.2021 that n9 agc dispute raised within one year of due date of retirement would bc entertained as per Circular dated 16-O8-2O 12.

6. Petitioner, admittedly, joined servicc of the respondent Company in 1983. Thqugh he conlends that he submitted representation for correQtion of daLe of birth on 15-05-1989, he did not place the same on record. Subsequently, as is evident from the annexures, pelitioner submitted representations on l6t.IO.2O12 and again on 07 .04.2016, ie. nearly atter 25 yehrs of his induction into service, which, by no standards, can bc held to be reasonable, as has been heid by the Hon'ble Sqrpreme Court in State of I 8 {. M.P. u. Premlal Shriaasl l'-urther' whert petitioner had opportunity to rectify at the time of IME' he CirJ not avail the same and he put his thumb impression ackno'vlt)dging the date of birth mentioned therein, hence, just prior 1o his retirement' Iiiing representation seeking change in the dat: of birth' canno[ beentertainedatthefagendofserviceafterac:ce:ptingthesame to be correct during entire service, as has been held in Bharat Coking Coal Limited u. Shgo;m Kishore Singhtt. Here, it is pertinent to note that lar'r'on this aspcct 7 is no more res integra The Hon'ble Su preme Court In Kcrnatcrka Rural InJrastructute Detoloptnent Ltd"s case (supra), held the law on change of date of birttr as under: (i) Application for change of date of birth <:art only be as per the relev-ant provisions / regulations applicable; (ii) trven if there is cogent evidence, the same cannol be claimed as a matter of right; (iii) Application can be rejected on the groued of delay and laches also more particularly when it is made at the fag-end of service and / or when the elnployee is about to retlre on attaining the age of superallnuation-' In the light of the law declared on the subject' as 8. stated supra, the judgments reiied on by lt:at ned counsel for I (1J!| I tq Ste r'b+ lr)O)0rlSCC+ll 9 'Xrh pehlloner cannot be looked into. erefore, in the absence of any proof to show that petitioner produced relevant documents in proof of his age at the time of his initial apporntment and since he approached this Court on the verge of retirement, this Court is of the considered opinion (hat Writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9

10. The Writ Petition is gccordingly, dismissed. No Consequently, Miscella4reous Applications, if any shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/-K.BHAVANI SWAMY S ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRl. PAVAN KUMAR ADI 2. One CC to SRl. P co.LrD) [oPUC] A IVALLA Advocate [OPUC] sRt HARSHA REDqy (SC FOR StNGARENT COLLTERTES

3. Two CD Copies KKS GJP a l ,.t/.--\\ -o' 2 3 rlJB 206 2 /. \a.\ -/ HIGH COURT DATED:2810512025 ORDER WP.No.23555 of 2019 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 9 o