It/erugu Chandraiah v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filsd in supporl of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the o;reration of the lmpugned Age Assessment Report dated 211712023 issued by the respondent No.3 to 6, by directing the respondent No.3 to 6 to consider the petitioner Date of Birth as per SSC dated 2010811973 and to continue him in service in the respondent company pending disposal of the main writ petition in the irterest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI KALVALA SANJEEV Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR SERVICES -ll Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6 : SRI P.SRI HARSHA REDDY, SC FOR SCCL The Court macle the following ORDER 3 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.28304 oF 2023 ORDER: Heard Sri G.vidya sagar, learned senior designated counsel representing sri K.sanjeev, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on record, learned Assistant Government pleader for services-rr appearing on behalf of the respondent No.l and sri p.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned standing counsel for sccL appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 6.

2. The oetitioner aooroached the court seekinq praver as under: "...to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 issued by the Impugned Age Assessment Report dated zL.z.2023 is highly ilt6gal, arbitrary, unconstitutional violation of principles of Natural Justice and also in violation of Articles 14 of the constitution of India, set aside the impugned Age Assessment Report dated 2L.07.2023 and consequenUy direct the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 to_ consider the petitioner Date of Birth as per ssc on dated 20.08. L973 and to continue him in servile in the respondent company and to grant..." fne case of tne pefi

3. averments made bv oetitioner in suooort of the oresent writ oetition. is as under: 4 It is specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointec as floating Badili worker in 19BB in the respondent corporation and at the time of appointment of the petitioner the respondert corporation wrongly entered the age of the petitioner as 25 y€:ars age and date of birth as 15.11.1963 instead of entering .he correct date of birth 1.e., 20.08.1973 as perthe SCC memo of the Petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner made r()quests to the respondent corporation to modify petitione-'s date of birth as 20.08.1973 as per the SCC memo of the peti :ioner, but respondent authority orally rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not su.bmit petitioner's SCC Marks memo at the time of appointment' Thereaft,lr, the petitioner got promoted to the post of sampling mazdoor Cat-1 on basis of the petitioner's SCC memo only, but however the respondent corporation did not take any action to modify the date of birth of the petitioner. On earlier occasion, the peti:ioner filed W.P.No.6690 of 2019 and this court was pleased to dispose of the said Writ petition vide order dated lg.L2.2O2L directing the respondent authority to refer the case of the F)etitioner to "Age determination committee" as per the JBCCI irstructions dated 27.03.1990. The age determination 5 committee after examining the petitioner gave a report dated 2L.07.2023 stating that the age of the petitioner is around 60 years and accordingly the age of petitioner at the time of appointment was 25 years. Aggrieved by the said report, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. PERUSE D THE RECORD: A. The relevant portion of the Age Assessment Reoort dated 21.o7.2023 issued bv the respondent comoanv is extracted hereunder:- In this connection, Apex Medical Board is constituted as per extant company guidelines. Further, Sri Merugu Chandraiah, E.C.No.2092875, Sampling Mazdoor. euality Dept., BHP Area was issued Notice No. BH P/PER/2023/3369 , Dt.L7 .07 .2023 informing him of the date and time of his medical examination by the doctors of sccl and also Apex Medical Board to determine his age. Accordingly, he was examined by a panel of doctors on 2L.07.2023. There after he was advised to attend before Apex Medical Board for assessment of his age on 21.07.2023. Sri Merugu Chandraiah, attended before the Apex Medical Board on 2t.07.2023 and informed the Board that his age was recorded as 25 years as on 15.11.1988 (DOB:15.11.1963) instead of DOB:20.08.L973 as per SSC Memo. In support of his claim, he has produced SSC memo (passed in October, 19BB) as documentary evidence. The Committee Members explained to Sri Merugu chandraiah regarding the Rules, Regulations governing the constitution of Apex Medical Board including the procedure of Medical Jurisprudence to determine the Age and procedure in solving the Age dispute as per guidelines communicated by JBCCI I.I. No. 76 vide Director (p&IR) I 6 Ir.r'io.cIL/NCWA/III/II No.76188/185, dtd.25-05-1988 and Cirr:ular No.P.49 I 47 02/ l{l 727 O, dtd.0 1. 08. 1 9BB. In accordance with the above gttidelines the original Cornpany records i.e., (a) Identity & Service Card (b) Form-B Register (c) Form-A CMPF Nomination have been verified by the Apex Medical Board Members and observed that his ageldate of birth was recorded as 25 years as on 15.11.1988 (DOB:15.11.1963) and there is no variation in the date of birth recorded in all the above Company records including Irritial Medical Examination(Form-O). The medical exarnination finding of the panel ol' doctors was als,r placed before the Apex Medical Board. The committee has observed that as per SSC memo submitted by Sri Merugu Chandralah, he is below 18 years of;lge (15 years 10 months and 18 days) as on the date of appointment in the Company (DOA: 08.07.1989) thereby he is par below the employable age. Further, he has not submitted the said SSC certificate at the time of his initial apl)ointment as Floating Badli Worker and he had deliberately suppressed the fact that he had passed SSC prirr to his appointment and deceived the company by giving deceitful undertaking at the tinle of appointment in th€r company to the effect that he was not having any re<:ord to prove his age and got employment as illiterate. The Apex Medical Board after considering his own statement, age assessed by the Panel of Doctors cornprising of Occupational Health Specialist, Dental Surgeon, Radiologist, Ophthalmologist, ENT Surgeon and Or:hopaedic Surgeon and taking into consideration of the ag,= recorded in the above Company's records and also foliowing the guidelines issued for solving the age disputes by the company/JBCCI guidelines, has determined the Age of Sri Merugu Chandraiah, E.C.No.2092875, Sampling Mezdoor, Quality Dept., BHP Area as around 60 years as on 2t.07.2023 and hence his Age recorded in Company's rer:ords i.e. 25 years as on 15.11.1988 (DOB: 15.11.1963) has been confirmed. B. The judoment of this Court in Kambam Venkata Rao Vs. Chair man and Manaqinq Director, Sinqareni Collieries 7 Comoany and Others, reported in 2022 SCC Online TS

01.1L.2022 and in oa ular oara .9, 11 to 14 are extracted hereunder:-

9. In the case of State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas, reported in (2011) 9 SCC page 664, in paragraph B and 12, it is observed and held as under:- *8. It needs to be emphasised that in matters involving correction of date of birth of a government servant, particularly on the eve of his superannuation or at the fag end of his career, the court or the tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the service book at the time of entry into any government service. Unless the court or the tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and that such a claim is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed or as per the consistent procedure adopted by the department concerned, as the case may be, and a real injustice has been caused to the person concerned, the court or the tribunal should be loath to issue a direction for correction of the service book. Time and again this court has expressed the view that if a government servant makes a request for correction of the recorded date of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond the time fixed by his employer, he cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth, even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. No court or the tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights (see Union of India v. Harnam Singh t(1993) 2 SCC t62:1e93 SCC (L&S) 37s: (1993) 24 AiC e2) ).

12. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the detay of over two decades in applying for the correction of date of birth is ex facie fatal to the case of the respondent, notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific rure or order, framed oi made, prescribing the period within which such application could be filed. It is trite that even in such a situation such an application should be filed which can be held to be <. 8 retrsonable. The application filed by the respondent 25 ye,lrs after his; induction into service, by no standards, can be held to be reasonable, more so when not a feeble attempt was made to explain the said delay. There is also no substance in the plea of the respondent that since Rule 84 of the M.P, Financial Code does not prescribe the time- lin,it within which an application is to be filed, the apcellants were duty bound to correct the clerical error in rer:ording of his date of birth in the service book." 11, In the case of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Shyam Kishore Singh reported in (2020) 3 SCC 411 - of vuhich one of us (Justice A.S. Bopanna) was a party to the bench has observed and held in paragraph 9 & 10 as under:- "9. This Court has consistentlv held that the request for chanqe of the date of birth in the service records aE_the fao end of service is not sustainable. The learned Additional Solicitor General has in that regard relied on the decision in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble (2010) 14 SCC 423 wherein a series of the earlier decisions of this Court were taken note and was held as hereunder: "Thr: learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri t(2005) 11 SCC 465 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 961. In this case, this Court has considered a nunrber of judgments of this Court and observed that the grievance as to the date of birth in the service record should not be permitted at the fag end of the service career.

12. In another judgment in State of Uttaranchal v. Pitamber Dutt Semwal [(2005) 11 SCC 477 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 106] relief was denied to the Government employee on the gror.rnd that he sought correction in the service record after nearly 30 years of service. While setting aside the judgment of the High Court, this Court observed that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the decislon after almost thrt:e decades.

13. These decisions lead to a different dimension of the case that correction at the fag end would be at the 9 cost of a large number of employees, therefore, any correction at the fag end must be discouraged by the court. The relevant portion of the judgment in Home Deptt. v. R. Kirubakaran 1L994 Supp (1) SCC 155 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 449 : (199a) 26 ATC B28l reads as under: (SCC pp. 158 59, para 7) "7. An application for correction of the date of birth [by a public servant cannot be entertained at the fag end of his servicel. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose their promotion forever. According to uS, this is an important aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the court or the tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such, unless a clear case on the basis of materials. which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent, the court or the tribunal should not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim ' only plausible. Before any such direction is issued, the court or the tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. ... the onus is on the applicant to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book.,,

14. This court in fact has also held that even if there is good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is erroneous, the correction cannot be craimed as a matter of right. In that regard, in State of M.p. v. Premlal Shrivas, reported in (2O11) 9 SCC 664 - it is held as hereunder:- * It needs to be emphasised that in matters involving correction of date of birth of a government servant, particularly on the eve of his superannuation or at the fag 10 end of his career, the court or the tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction for corrr:ction of date of birth, recorded in the service book at the [ime of entry into any government service. Unless the court or the tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of the irref.rtable proof relating to his date of birth and that such a clainr is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed or as per the consistent procedure adopted by the depcrrtment concerned, as the case may be, and a real inju:;tice has been caused to the person concerned, the court or the tribunal should be loath to issue a direction for corr,3ction of the service book. Time and again this Court has expressed the view that if a government servant makes a request for correction of the recoi'ded date of birth after laps-. of a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond the time fixed by his employer, he canrrot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth, even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. No court or the tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleepover their righ:s" (see Union of India v. Harnam Singh t(1993) 2 SCC t62 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 37s: (1993)."

5. Lr-.arned senior designated counsel appearing on behalf ,cf the petitioner mainly puts-forth the following submiss;ions:- The petitioner challenged the impugned age i) assessnlent report, dated 2L.O7.2023 contending that the responclent company corrected the date of birth of the candidartes who were below 18 years at the time of their appointment in the respondent company and the corrections were carried out in their service books and the 11 said employees (1) employee code oo575g named Kasaboina saraiah (2) Emproyee code o2ogs2g2 named Majipalli Srinivas (3 ) Emproyee code 00269763 named Gaddam Ranga Babu (a) Emptoyee code ooso4z24 named Sakinana Rajeshwara Rao, had their date of births corrected, and had been continued in the respondent companyr Ets per the setflement, dated 12.03.1990. ii) A candidate who desires to get their date of birth recorded on the basis of ssc/Matricutation certificate, should submit their applications on or before 3o.o4.1ggo for taking necessary action to correct the age within three months from the date of settlement as agreed to as per settlement, dated 12.03.1990, based on the circular issued by the respondent company, the petitioner had approached the respondent Authority for the correction of petitioner's date of birth as per the petitioner,s ssc certificate, however, the respondent Authority rejected the request of the petitioner orally, by stating that the petitioner did not submit his school certificate at the time of petitioner's appointment. t2 iii) The petitioner in compliance to the order, dated !9.t2.2c)21 passed by this court in w.P.No. 6690 of 2O19, submitterd application to the Apex Medical Board and in responsg to the application was called to appear before the Apex Medical Board along with SSC certificate on 13.04.2(123 to determine the age of the petitioner and the petitionr:r had submitted all the necessary certificates to the Apex Medical Board, but however the employee age assessment report, dated 21.A7.2023 had been issued by the resprondent Authority stating at para No.9 of the said report, that the petitioner had passed scc in october, 1988 arrd evidencing the same, the petitioner had filed SSC cerl:ificate, dated 2O.O8.1973, on the basis of the said certificate, the petitioner's age was below 18 years i.e., 15 years 1r) months and 18 days at the time of petitioner's initial appointment in the respondent company. iv) The: age assessment report, the Apex Medical Board declarett the age of the petitioner as around 60 years as on 21.07 .2Q.23 and hence, the petitioner's age recorded in the company's record is 25 years as on 15.11.1988. I I I 13 v) The relief extended to certain employees had been denied to the petitioner. vi) The impugned age assessment report, dated 2L.o7.2023 is contrary to the spirit of the orders of this court obtained in favour of the petitioner, dated

09.12.2O2L passed in W.p.No.669O of 2019. vii) The petitioner approached this court on an eartier occasion, this court vide its order, directed the respondents to refer the case of the petitioner to the age determination committee constituted as per JBccr instructions within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and upon reference being made, the age determination committee constituted as per JBccr instructions was directed to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance to law, but however, the impugned age assessment report, dated 2L.o1.2023 without considering the date of birth as per ssc certificate indicating the petitioner's date of birth as 2o.o8.Lg73t confirmed the age recorded in the company's record i.e., 25 years as on 15.11.1988. I I I 74 Bas;ed on the aforesaid submissions, the learned aanirrr rlacirrn nat arn lrahrlf t]ra oetitionrlr contends that Detitioner is entitled for the relief as orav€:d for bv the petitioner hereir!. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the

6. respondent Nos.2 to 6 contends that the orders of this court, dlated 09.12.2O2L passed in w.P.No.669O of 2019 had been duly complied with and the petitioner's case had been referred to the age determination committee as per JBCCI truidelines and the said committee determined the age of the petitioner as around 60 years as on 21.07.2023 which is in consonance with the age recorded in company's records i.e., 15.11.1963 and therefore, the a petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition and the writ petition needs to be dismissed.

7. A bare perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the l'espondent Nos.2 to 6 in particular the averments made at para No.11 clearly indicates that the specific case of the respondents is that this Court on an earlier occasion passed order, dated O9.L2.2O2L in W.P.No.669O 15 of 2019, and in compliance to the said directions of this court, the petitioner was referred to the Hospital of the respondent company for determination of Age of the petitioner by the Age Determination committee as per JBCCI guidelines, the petitioner was examined by the panel of Doctors comprising occupational Health specialist, ophthalmologist, Dental surgeon, Radiologist and ENT Surgeon and the Apex Medical Board after considering the statement of the petitioner, age assessed by the Panel of Doctors and age recorded in the company's records and also following the guidelines issued for solving the age disputes by the companv/JBCCT guidelines, had determined the age of the petitioner as around 60 years as on zt.oz.2o23 and held that the petitioner's age recorded in the company's records i.e.,

15.11.1963 as having been confirmed, and the same had also been informed to the petitioner, but however the petitioner refused to sign the Age Assessment Report before the committee and craimed the said report through RTr and therefore, in view of the fact that order had been duly complied with, the petitioner is not entitled for the 1** : : ! i I i I I I i I I I I I 16 correction of date of birth at the fag-end of the petitioner's service.

8. A tlare perusal of the averments made at para No.6 of the corrnter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.2 to 6 indicaters a specific plea put-forth by the respondent Nos.2 to 5 th6t in view of the fact that since the petitioner did not submit any documentary proof regarding petitioner's age/da'le of birth at the time of petitioner's initial appointment in the respondent company, the age of the petitioner was assessed as 25 years as on 15.11.1988 by the then Colliery Medical Officer in the Age Assessment Form ;1:s w€ll as in the Initial Medical Examination (IME) Form-O, which was converted as petitioner's date of birth as 15.1.1.1963 and petitioner's age as 25 years as on 15.11.1988 in all the service records and hence, other docume:nts/certificates submitted at later point of time cannot be considered.

9. Taking into consideration the specific averments made in the r:ounter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.2 to 6 at para Nos.6 & 11, and the observations of the Apex Court in the iudgment reported in 2022 SCC Online TS 2639, €i L7 dated o1.11.2fJ22 in Kambam venkata Rao vs. chairman and Managing Director, singareni collieries company and others (referred to and extracted above), this court opines that petitioner is not entitled for grant of any relief as prayed for in the present writ petition.

10. a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions put-forth by the tearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 6. c) The counter affidavit filed on beharf of the respondent Nos.2 to 6 (referred to and extracted above) d) The contents of the Age Assessment Report, dated 21,.07.2(J23 issued by the respondent company (referred to and extracted above) e) The earlier order of this court, dated og.Lz.zozt \t passed in W.p.No.669O of 2O19. I 7I 1B f) Tlre observations in the judgment of this court in Karmbam Venkata Rao Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, singareni collieries company and others, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine TS 2639, dated O1..1L.2}zz(referred to and extracted above) g) Ttre discussion and conclusion as arrived at para Nos.5 to 9 of the present judgment. f court passed in favour of the petitionel, dated o9.12.2O21 in w.P.No.669O of 2o19 had been dulv complied with, and in view rf the settled legal po-sition bv the ADex Court that reouest for chanoe of date of birth in the service records at the faq end of service is not sustainable, this Court is of the firnr ooinion that oetitioner is not entitled for the correction of date of birth at the faq-end of oetitioner's Hewever, there shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous Petitions Petition, shall stand closed. , if doy, nding in this Writ \ To //TRUE COPY// SD/.K. MADHAVI ASSISTANT REGISTRARe SECTION OFFICER one fair copy to the HON'BLE MRS JUsflcE suREpALLt NANDA (For His Lordship's Kind perusal)

1. 11 L.R. Copies. .*.,,, , ,..,1:-:4 . - .i-;1i:{:i}L{& ''::;?5il$il . . it-t! .J j I[:,rr.:fl,"J_.;:fif, Union of tndia, rMinistry of Law, Justice and company a n a Ad vo c a te s A s s o c i a ti o n L i b ra ry, H i s h c o u rr "tff l?,fl ;li,il? ffi.,', Iffi":rn:: StiP- sERvlcES- ll, Hish court ror the State or retansana ar One CC to SRI K{LJ4f4_SANJEEV,advocate ?ff 33 3;[i" tnr HAndHn REb'ov, 5c"Fb't'sE;1, Advocate (opuc) [opUCI 2 3

4. 5 6 7 SA BS 9r- 1 \ : I I l HIGH COURT DATED:30/1 012025 I i a I I tt HE STA ( 3 zzJtN2o26 1:) ORDER WP.No.28304 of 2023 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOU COSTS. * .:r' @ 'fl -,:':