The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN WRJT PETITION No.14O6 OF 2016 ORDER: This writ petitron is hled to call for records and to declare the order passed b1, rcspondent No-2 in proceedings Ref.No. MMR/PER/S/ 17 | I 151 6590 dated 10.10.2015 determining the age of the potitioner as 61 years as on 07.O9.2015 (treating the date of birth of the petitioner as 28.12.1954 based on the report the Apex Medical Boarct IIx.P- 1) instead of 28.12.1957 (based on his schoot record) as illegal, contrary to law, unjust and perverse and to set aside the same; and to declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service up to 31.12.2O17 by considering the date of birth as 28.12.1957.

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

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner rvas appointed in service of the respondent Company on 19.O2.1983. That he had studied up to Class-V in Sri SaraErilathi Shishu Mandir High School, Sharadha Nagar, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District, wherein his date of birth i I' 2 as per School record was recorded as 28.12.1957. However, the respondcnt Company wrongly entercd the date of birth of the petitioncr as 28.111.1954, on the basis of mcdicai examination

4. The petitioner contcnds that as per the Implementalion Instruction No.76 of the Nalional Coal Wagc Agreement (NCWA), thc date of birth cntered in school records must taken as correct in vien. of his education up to Cl:rss V in a recognized erlucational institulion. Thus, the dzrte of birth recorded in the bona fi.de certiltcale issued by the school as 28.12.1957, should be treatecl as the correct date of birth. The petitioner further contends that he u.as under thre bona fide behef that he would retire on attaining the age of superannuation i.e., on 31 .O7.2017 , reckoning hts date of birth as 28.12.1957.

5. It is contended by the petitioner that though he appeared belore the Mcdical Board on 07.09.2O15 ancl 14.09.2O15 as per the directions passed by this Court uide Judgment dated

31.03.20I 5, it neither conducted a proper medical examination nor considerc d th,: bona fi.de certrficate issued by Sri Saraswathi Shishu Manclir H'igh School wherein his date of birth is shown as 28.12.1957. J

6. It is further contended that though this Court directed the respondent Compaly to consider the case of the petitioner, by iooking into the records, the respondents did not consider the same, nor assign any cogent reasons as to accepting the entries made by the authorities themsclves. The petitioner contends that he is entitled to continue in service up to 31.07.2017.

7. The petitioner further contends that in respect of other employees, the Medical Board q'hich initially determined the age of the ernployee on the basis of medical examination have subsequently accepted the date of birth as per the SSC certihcate, which was acquired prior to the date of appointment'

8. Per Contro,learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 contended that as per Implementation Instruction No.76 of the Joint Bipartite Committee for Coal Industry (JBCCI), the procedure in determination of the age/ date of birth at the time of appointment is done by determining the age at the time of appointment was as under: Procedure for d"etennination/ uerification of age of the emplogee and for resolution of disputes cases of seruice records (A) Determination of the oge at the time of appointment i) Matriat lates: In th.e case of appointees who Ltaue passed Matriculation or eqiualent examinations, the date of birth recorded in the said certificate slnlt be treated o-s correct date of birth' and the same will not be altered under ang circumstances. 4 ii) Non-matriculates but educated: In the case o.[ appointees u.tho haue pursued studies in a recogni-zed ed rcqtional institution, the date of birth recorded in the. Sc-hool Leauing Cerlifi.cate, shall be treated as correct date oJ birth atd the sctme utill not be cLltered under ang circu.nt stances. iii) D,.: Seruicern.en: In the cose o1 Ex'serutcem.en uho are not naticulates, the date of binh r,-.:corcled ln tlrc Anng Dtscharge Certiftcate shall be treated as cotrect date d birth ond the same unll not be oltered under ung circumstances- In the case of Ex- Seruicemen tuho haue passed MatnatLation examinattott, the da.te, oJ' birth re.corded in the Maticu\ation CertiJicate utill be treoled es corect date of birth, prouided they houe passed the Matnanla.tion exam[nation before enteing the Defense Serurce-s; othe,nuise the date of birth recorded in Anng Discharge CeriLrtca.te utill be taken ds correct date <>[ birlh. iu) Ilhterate: In the case o.t'eppointees not couered under tLrc foregoing clr-ruse.s, the date of birth will be detennined bg the C(tLliery Medu:al OfJicer keeping in uietu ang doatmentary and other releuont euidence as produced by the appointee. Date of birth as detennineci shall be treated as correct date of birth and the s.]m€ u-till not be altered under ong circumstances."

9. It is further contended that for re vieq, or determining the date of birth in respect ol existing employees, the foilowing procedurc is con sidered as per the implementation instruction No.76 which reads as under: (B) Reuieut/ dete;nnination of date of birth in respect of eisting employees: a) In tlrc case of the eisting em,ployees Maticwlation Certirt.cote or Higher Secondary Certificate bsued bg the recognized Uniuersities or Board or Middle Pass Certifcate issued bg the Board of Education and/ or Department of Public Instihttions and adrnit cards issued bg the aforesaid Bodies should be treated es correct prouided they uere issued bg the said + 5 uniuersities/ Boards/ Institutions pnor to the date of emp\ogment. b) Similartg, Mining Sirdarship, Winding Engine or similar other statutory certiftcates uhere the Manager had to certifu the date of birth tuitt be treateri as authentic. Prouided that u-there both documents mentioned in (i) (a) and (i) (b) aboue are auailoble, the clate of birth recorded in (i) (a) will be treated as cluthentic' Whereuer there is no uaiation in records, such cases will not be reopened- unless there is a uery gtaing and apporent Lorong entry brought to the notice of the Management. The Management after being sati.sfied on the meits of the case uil'l take appropiate action for correctlon through Age Determi'nation Committee / Medicat Board.

10. Learned counsel for respondent No-2/SCCL contended that the petitioner entered the services of the Company as an illiterate and at that time, his age was assessed by the Colliery Medical Officer as 28 years as on 28.12.1982 and the same age was entered in all records, which was also accepted by the petitioner as correct by afhxing his thumb impression as a token of acceptance of the same. Horvcver, the petitioner did not disclose his academic qualifrcation at any point of time and now at the fag end of his tenure, onLy to gain undue advantage he is claiming that he studied upto Class-V and his date of birth is 28.12.1957 which is an afterthought which merits no consideration.

11. It is further contended that the alleged bono ftde certihcate was obtained by the petitioner on 03'11'2O14, and the date on the certificate itself shows that the claim of the 6 a petitioner that the certiflcate was submitted by the petitioner at the time of l-ris initial appointment is impossible and thus false atr<l incorrect. |lvcn, as per JBCCI guidehnes, bona fi.de cr:rtificatc is not a valid certificate for determination of age. In anv evenl, a cerl ificate sought to be relied upon, should have bccn acquircd b-v the employee prior to his entry inlo the sen'ices ol tlre Compzrny.

12. Furthcr, rr:spondent No.2 contends that the petitioner altcr being in seruicc for 31 years, now at the fag end of his serwice is claiming to havc studied upto Class-V; and that his date of birth has to be reckoned as 28.12.1957, based on the recently obtained certihcerte. This itself clearly explains the mal- ir)t( nlion ol the pttitioncr.

13. Responden-- No.2 contends that in pursuance of the directions oI this Court, it had fixed a scheclule of Medical Examination on 07.09.2O15 and also Apex Medical Board review on 14.09.2015 in order to undertake clinical examination of the pe litioner and then to review the case by Apex Medical Board in a systematic manner, u,hich was communicated to the petitioner through letter dated 29.O8.2O15. Accordingly, after various medical examinations the Apex Medical Board E + 7 confirmed the age of petitioner as around 61 years "as on

14.09.2015 and hence the date of agei birth of the petitioner recorded in the company's record i.e., 28 years as on 2a.t2 t982".

14. It is contended that the Apex Medical Board after reviewing the Birth Certificate issued by the Registrar of Births & Deaths, MCH, Hyderabad and bona frde certificate dated 03. 1 1.2O 14 produced by the petitioner and taking into consideration the statement of the petitioner and the assessment made by Panel of Doctors had confirmed the date of birth/age as recorded in Company records, which decision of the Panel of Doctors and Apex Medical Board was communicated to the petitioner through the impugned letter dated 10. 10.2015 duly enclosing the proceedings of Panel of Doctors and Apex Medical Board, in original, which was acknowledged by the petitioner on 14.10.2015. Further, the Apex Medical Board uide proceedings dated 14-O9.2O15 has observed as under: "The Apex Medicat Board afier considering his oun stotement, age a.ssessed bg the Panel of Doctors comprising of Ocatpationol Health Specialist, Dental Surgeon, Radiologist, Ophtlnlmologist, ENT Surgeon and Orthopaedic Surgeon and taking into consideration of the age recorded in o Sn Gaddam Bal Redd the Company's records the hns been detennined as around 61 1tears os on 14.09.2015 8 and lrcnce his a.qe/ DOB recorded in Comparu.t's record i.e. 28 rs as on 28.12.1982 has beelLconfiryted." -

15. Further, respon<lent No.2 contends that the petitioner has retired from thr' servicc of the respondent Company on

31.12.2O11 r.c- olL attaining the age of superannuation and his name \rras rcmovr:d lrom thc rolls of the respondent Company and he has subrrritted l-ris claim forms and has claimed all his terminal bcncfits ,.lue to him

16. In thc instant case, it is the case of the petitioncr that he is entitlecl to conrlnue his ser-vice in the respondent Company till 31.07.2017 on rhe basis of th-e bona fi.de certihcate issued by the School, rvherein l'ris date of birth i.e. 28.12.1954 is wrongly rccorded b1, the respondents as 28.12.1957, and as around 61 years as on 07.O9.2015. L7. It rs pcrtinent to note that in the event the petitioner had, in fact, submitted the school certihcate at the time of joining senice, as being asserted by him, there would have been no occasion or necessity for the respondent Company to have referred the petitioner to the Colliery Medical Ofhcer for the purpose o[ ascertaining his age. This itself shows that the petitioner did not furnish any certificate issued by the School as alleged by him. t' 9

18. 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 the date of birth was made due to negligence of some other person or that the same was an obvious clerical error failing which the rclief should not be granted to htm fSee.' Commissioner o;f Police v. Bhaguan V. Lahanel).

19. I.-urther, in the case ol tlma Ro.m v. M/s. Bho-rat Coking Coo,l Litnited2, it was observed that the agc of illiterate appoinlees is to be determined by the Colliery Mcdical Officer keeping in vieu' any documentary and other relevant evidence produced by the concerned appointees and the said date of birth has to be treated as correct date of birth which cannot be altered under any circumstance. 2o.. Further, it is clear that the petitioner did not provide the bona fide certificate at the time of his entry into the servicc i.e., on 19.02.1983, as evident from the date of issuance of certilrcate the bono fide certificate dated 03.ll.2Ol4.It is on the basis of the said bona fide certificate that the petitioner is alleging to have been studied till Class-V, the said bona fide ' (1997) r scc 247 ' L-P.A.No.8l of 2025. dated 22-08.2025 l0 certificatc cirnnol- be taken into consideration zrs documentary evidence to irssess thc original date of brrth

21. Thr-- Ilrrn'ble Sul)reme Court in State of M.P. u. Prernlal Shriuas: rvlrile rcilcnrLing thc similar view in Bharat Coking Coal Limited d.rtd. others u. Shgam Kishsore Singha has held as r rnder. ul wlttlr: of date tl L) t!!!1149 directiort irtlt of cr qouentment seruant

8. It neals tc bc ernp ha.si-sed that in matters inuoluinq . r: artlcularlu co rTe c! t() t 1 hrs- _ srtDeranrtuution or rtt the faq end ol' his t)n thc t'r:e of career. Llu' courl ar Llrc tibun.al hrts to bt: circum:; pect, cautlous uttd core conection of date of racc,r<leci irr llrt, seryrce book et Lhe tirrte of etinl into anl) thc courl or the tribunal is fittlu 0ouefltttc.t)l serr.,ilr, [/n/ess cl i:rr tltc: lxr-si.s of tLLa [fiefutablc proof relatinq to hts s^atls LE date o huth and li r.rr sLC/t ct cluim is rnade in accordance utith rt:scibed or as per the consistent procedure the procetlure rldopted .btt the' det)erhrcnt concerned as the c<lse may be, and a r<.ol injuslic:t, tras bec'n caused to the person concerned, lhe colul or the: lriltLtrtrtL slu:tLtld be loath lo issue a direction for correcltott oJ' thc scrtice book. Time ancl aqain this Court has expresserl lhe uieut that il e qouemm,ent seruent mdkes a rgc4test lo o lon partianlarttl 1Xe<l bu lis crnDlouer. he cannot claim, as a beqond tha tim<: matter of birth euen I he has qood eudcnce io c-sloblish tLrut the recorded date of birth is cleorh1 ctoneous. Nct courl or the tribundl can come to the aid (se-e [Jnion of () 19es scc (L&s) r con'e.cttotr of the recorded date o rne oi /ris^ induction into the seruice thost: LUh.() sleeD ouer their Indta t'. IIttntan, Snqh [(199.3) 2 SCC 162 375 : (l()9.)) 24 A'1('()21 ). the correction o his date o birth a riqhts (emphasis supplied) I (roll) 9 scc 664 '(t()lo) i sc( .r I I ,l 1l

22. 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 reaction, inasmuch as others u,aiting for years for their respective promotions will be affected because of the correction of thc date oi birth and many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose the promotion lor ever (See: Home Depdrtment u. R. Kirubakarans).

23. The Apex Court in the case of G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Limited West Bengal u. Shib Kumar Dushad and other{' by reiterating the vieu, taken in Bunt Sto,ndo,rd Co. Ltd. v. Dinabandhu Majutndarz has held as under:

22. .....T-he fact that on emplogee of Cauernment or its instrumentality tlho has been in serutce for ouer decades, tuith no objection uthotsoeuer roi-sed as to his date of birth accepted by the employer as correct, when all of a sudden comes forutard toutards the fag end of hi.s seruice career uith a uit application before the High Court seeking conection of hi-s date of birth in hA seruice record, the uery conduct of non-raising of an objection in the matter by the emplogee, in our uieu.t, should be a sulficient reoson Jor the High Court, not to entertain such application s on grounds of acquiescence, undue detag and laches. Moreouer, dlscretionary jurisdiction of tlrc High Court can neuer be said to haue been reasonabtg and judiciallg exercised if it entertains such utrit application, for no emplogee, u.tho had t 1994 Supp (t) SCC I55 n (2ooo) s scc 696 ' 1ll9s; a scc tzz 12 I gieuance as to his date of birth in his 'seruice and leaue record.' c'ouLd. haue genuinelg rttoited till the fag end of his seruice career to get it cotected bg auailing of the ertraord1fta.ry .pnsdictiot of a Higlt Court. Therefore, tue ho.ue no lLesilotictn, in hokling, that ordinailg Lligh Courts shoukl not, it exercise of their discretionary uit jurisdiction., entertain ct utrit application/ petition filed bg an empicttlee of ttrc Gouernment or its instntmenktlitg, toutards the [ag end o-f hLs seruice, seeking correction of his dcLte of birth entered it l'tis 'senice and leoue record' or seruice register tuith the auouted object of continutng in seruice- begond lh.e nomtaL period of his retiretnen.t. (emphttsts supPlted)

24. The pctitioner has {iled the prcsent writ petition on

18.01.2O 16 i.e., altcr more than a year from thc date of retiring from the scn,ice on 3l .1,2.2014. u'hich itself shows the delay on the part of Lhe pe titioner- Thus, the cLaim of the petitioner to correct the date of birth cannot be permittecl after his retirement from service and the petitioner cannot bc allowed to raise a dispute as regards thc correctness of the entries in the service records, belaredly. 25, F urther, on perusal of the material on record, it is seen thal in compliance with the directions issued uide order dated

31.03.2015 in W.P.No.33343 of 2012, the petitioner was examined bv thr: Apex Medical Board on 07.09.2O15 and

14.Og.2OI5, wherein the Board conclusively assessed confirmed the petitioner's age as 28 years as on 28.12.1982, and duly communicated it to the petitioner by the impugned proceedings 1_ l3 dated 10.10.2015. It was upon the petitioner to raise any objection at the relevant time when his date of birth was entered in the service records and having failed to do so despite due noticc, the petitione r is deemed to have accepted the determination by the Board, which has attained hnality. Thus, the petitioner cannot nou' be permitted to challenge it at this belated stage.

26. [n view of rhe forcgoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner for correction of date of birth cannot be allowcd. This Court is also of the view that the impugned proceeding Ref.No. MMR/ PER/ S/ 17 1 / i5/6590 dated 10.10.2015, does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The writ petition is clevoid of merits and is liablc to be dismissed.

27. Accordingly, the Writ Pcti-.ion is dismissed. No order as to Consequently, misccllaneous petitions pending ii aly shall stand closed. SDI-A. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6- SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To 1 2 One CC to SRI A K' JAYAPRAKASH RAO' Advocate [OPUCI One CC to SRI P SRI HARSHA REDDY' S C for Singareni Collieries Co Ltd toPUcl

3. Two CD CoPies MP BS v- - -- --_-":!A HIGH COURT DATED:2610912025 ( /i- //-;' f?It<.\',l- Tl; c 2 I qrfl 2026 pATC ORDER WP.No.1406 of 2016 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 6 .oP(do k"t