Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1109 (TS)

G. bala Reddy v. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd

2025-09-26

G.M.MOHIUDDIN

body2025
ORDER : G.M. MOHIUDDIN, J. This writ petition is filed to call for records and to declare the order passed by respondent No.2 in proceedings Ref.No. MMR/PER/S/171/15/6590 dated 10.10.2015 determining the age of the petitioner as 61 years as on 07.09.2015 (treating the date of birth of the petitioner as 28.12.1954 based on the report the Apex Medical Board Ex.P-1) instead of 28.12.1957 (based on his school 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 31.12.2017 by considering the date of birth as 28.12.1957. 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 (SCCL) and perused the record. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed in service of the respondent Company on 19.02.1983. That he had studied up to Class-V in Sri Saraswathi Shishu Mandir High School, Sharadha Nagar, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District, wherein his date of birth as per School record was recorded as 28.12.1957. However, the respondent Company wrongly entered the date of birth of the petitioner as 28.12.1954, on the basis of medical examination. 4. The petitioner contends that as per the Implementation Instruction No.76 of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), the date of birth entered in school records must taken as correct in view of his education up to Class-V in a recognized educational institution. Thus, the date of birth recorded in the bona fide certificate issued by the school as 28.12.1957, should be treated as the correct date of birth. The petitioner further contends that he was under the bona fide belief that he would retire on attaining the age of superannuation i.e., on 31.07.2017, reckoning his date of birth as 28.12.1957. 5. It is contended by the petitioner that though he appeared before the Medical Board on 07.09.2015 and 14.09.2015 as per the directions passed by this Court vide Judgment dated 31.03.2015, it neither conducted a proper medical examination nor considered the bona fide certificate issued by Sri Saraswathi Shishu Mandir High School wherein his date of birth is shown as 28.12.1957. 6. 6. It is further contended that though this Court directed the respondent Company to consider the case of the petitioner, by looking into the records, the respondents did not consider the same, nor assign any cogent reasons as to accepting the entries made by the authorities themselves. 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 which initially determined the age of the employee on the basis of medical examination have subsequently accepted the date of birth as per the SSC certificate, which was acquired prior to the date of appointment. 8. Per Contra, 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 determination/verification of age of the employee and for resolution of disputes cases of service records (A) Determination of the age at the time of appointment i) Matriculates: In the case of appointees who have passed Matriculation or equivalent examinations, the date of birth recorded in the said certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances. ii) Non-matriculates but educated: In the case of appointees who have pursued studies in a recognized educational institution, the date of birth recorded in the School Leaving Certificate, shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances. iii) Ex-Servicemen: In the case of Ex-servicemen who are not matriculates, the date of birth recorded in the Army Discharge Certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances. In the case of Ex- Servicemen who have passed Matriculation examination, the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate will be treated as correct date of birth, provided they have passed the Matriculation examination before entering the Defense Services; otherwise the date of birth recorded in Army Discharge Certificate will be taken as correct date of birth. In the case of Ex- Servicemen who have passed Matriculation examination, the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate will be treated as correct date of birth, provided they have passed the Matriculation examination before entering the Defense Services; otherwise the date of birth recorded in Army Discharge Certificate will be taken as correct date of birth. iv) Illiterate: In the case of appointees not covered under the foregoing clauses, the date of birth will be determined by the Colliery Medical Officer keeping in view any documentary and other relevant evidence as produced by the appointee. Date of birth as determined shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances." 9. 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) Review/determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees: a) In the case of the existing employees Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the recognized Universities or Board or Middle Pass Certificate issued by the Board of Education and/or Department of Public Institutions and admit cards issued by the aforesaid Bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said Universities/ Boards/ Institutions prior to the date of employment. b) Similarly, Mining Sirdarship, Winding Engine or similar other statutory certificates where the Manager had to certify the date of birth will be treated as authentic. Provided that where both documents mentioned in (i) (a) and (i) (b) above are available, the date of birth recorded in (i) (a) will be treated as authentic. Wherever there is no variation in records, such cases will not be reopened unless there is a very glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the Management. The Management after being satisfied on the merits of the case will take appropriate action for correction through Age Determination Committee/ Medical Board. 10. Wherever there is no variation in records, such cases will not be reopened unless there is a very glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the Management. The Management after being satisfied on the merits of the case will take appropriate action for correction through Age Determination Committee/ Medical 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 affixing his thumb impression as a token of acceptance of the same. However, the petitioner did not disclose his academic qualification 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 bona fide certificate was obtained by the petitioner on 03.11.2014, and the date on the certificate itself shows that the claim of the petitioner that the certificate was submitted by the petitioner at the time of his initial appointment is impossible and thus false and incorrect. Even, as per JBCCI guidelines, bona fide certificate is not a valid certificate for determination of age. In any event, a certificate sought to be relied upon, should have been acquired by the employee prior to his entry into the services of the Company. 12. Further, respondent No.2 contends that the petitioner after being in service for 31 years, now at the fag end of his service is claiming to have studied upto Class-V; and that his date of birth has to be reckoned as 28.12.1957, based on the recently obtained certificate. This itself clearly explains the mal-intention of the petitioner. 13. Respondent No.2 contends that in pursuance of the directions of this Court, it had fixed a schedule of Medical Examination on 07.09.2015 and also Apex Medical Board review on 14.09.2015 in order to undertake clinical examination of the petitioner and then to review the case by Apex Medical Board in a systematic manner, which was communicated to the petitioner through letter dated 29.08.2015. Accordingly, after various medical examinations the Apex Medical Board confirmed the age of petitioner as around 61 years “as on 14.09.2015 and hence the date of age/birth of the petitioner recorded in the company’s record i.e., 28 years as on 28.12.1982”. 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 fide certificate dated 03.11.2014 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 vide proceedings dated 14.09.2015 has observed as under: "The Apex Medical Board after considering his own statement, age assessed by the Panel of Doctors comprising of Occupational Health Specialist, Dental Surgeon, Radiologist, Ophthalmologist, ENT Surgeon and Orthopaedic Surgeon and taking into consideration of the age recorded in the Company's records, the Age of Sri Gaddam Bal Reddy has been determined as around 61 years as on 14.09.2015 and hence his age/DOB recorded in Company's record i.e. 28 yrs as on 28.12.1982 has been confirmed." 15. Further, respondent No.2 contends that the petitioner has retired from the service of the respondent Company on 31.12.2014 i.e. on attaining the age of superannuation and his name was removed from the rolls of the respondent Company and he has submitted his claim forms and has claimed all his terminal benefits due to him. 16. In the instant case, it is the case of the petitioner that he is entitled to continue his service in the respondent Company till 31.07.2017 on the basis of the bona fide certificate issued by the School, wherein his date of birth i.e. 28.12.1954 is wrongly recorded by the respondents as 28.12.1957, and as around 61 years as on 07.09.2015. 17. 17. It is pertinent to note that in the event the petitioner had, in fact, submitted the school certificate at the time of joining service, 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 Officer for the purpose of ascertaining his age. This itself shows that the petitioner did not furnish any certificate issued by the School as alleged by him. 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 relief should not be granted to him (See: Commissioner of Police v. Bhagwan V. Lahane , [ (1997) 1 SCC 247 ] ) 19. Further, in the case of Uma Ram v. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited , [L.P.A.No.81 of 2025, dated 22.08.2025] , 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 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. 20. Further, it is clear that the petitioner did not provide the bona fide certificate at the time of his entry into the service i.e., on 19.02.1983, as evident from the date of issuance of certificate the bona fide certificate dated 03.11.2014. 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 certificate cannot be taken into consideration as documentary evidence to assess the original date of birth. 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas , L.P.A.No.81 of 2025 while reiterating the similar view in Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others v. Shyam Kishsore Singh , (2020) 3 SCC 411 ] has held as under: 8. 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas , L.P.A.No.81 of 2025 while reiterating the similar view in Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others v. Shyam Kishsore Singh , (2020) 3 SCC 411 ] has 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 [ (1993) 2 SCC 162 : 1993 SCC (L&S)375 : (1993) 24 ATC 92] ). (emphasis supplied) 22. No court or the tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights (see Union of India v. Harnam Singh [ (1993) 2 SCC 162 : 1993 SCC (L&S)375 : (1993) 24 ATC 92] ). (emphasis supplied) 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 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: Home Department v. R. Kirubakaran , [1994 Supp (1) SCC 155] ) 23. The Apex Court in the case of G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Limited West Bengal v. Shib Kumar Dushad and others , [ (2000) 8 SCC 696 ] by reiterating the view taken in Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. Dinabandhu Majumdar , [ (1995) 4 SCC 172 ] has held as under: 22. …..The fact that an employee of Government or its instrumentality who has been in service for over decades, with no objection whatsoever raised as to his date of birth accepted by the employer as correct, when all of a sudden comes forward towards the fag end of his service career with a writ application before the High Court seeking correction of his date of birth in his service record, the very conduct of non-raising of an objection in the matter by the employee, in our view, should be a sufficient reason for the High Court, not to entertain such applications on grounds of acquiescence, undue delay and laches. Moreover, discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court can never be said to have been reasonably and judicially exercised if it entertains such writ application, for no employee, who had grievance as to his date of birth in his ‘service and leave record’ could have genuinely waited till the fag end of his service career to get it corrected by availing of the extraordinary jurisdiction of a High Court. Therefore, we have no hesitation, in holding, that ordinarily High Courts should not, in exercise of their discretionary writ jurisdiction, entertain a writ application/petition filed by an employee of the Government or its instrumentality, towards the fag end of his service, seeking correction of his date of birth entered in his ‘service and leave record’ or service register with the avowed object of continuing in service beyond the normal period of his retirement. (emphasis supplied) 24. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition on 18.01.2016 i.e., after more than a year from the date of retiring from the service on 31.12.2014, which itself shows the delay on the part of the petitioner. Thus, the claim of the petitioner to correct the date of birth cannot be permitted after his retirement from service and the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise a dispute as regards the correctness of the entries in the service records, belatedly. 25. Further, on perusal of the material on record, it is seen that in compliance with the directions issued vide order dated 31.03.2015 in W.P.No.33343 of 2012, the petitioner was examined by the Apex Medical Board on 07.09.2015 and 14.09.2015, 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 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 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 it at this belated stage. 26. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner for correction of date of birth cannot be allowed. This Court is also of the view that the impugned proceeding Ref.No. MMR/PER/S/171/ 15/6590 dated 10.10.2015, does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 27. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.