Telangana High Court
M. Rajeswar vs The Singareni Collieries Company ... on 3 July, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 31425 of 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following relief:
"...to declare the impugned order
Ref.No.MMR/SK/W15/ 2024 /984 dated
28.03.2024 issued by the 7th respondent, vide Ref. No. MMR/PER/L/062/24/4242 dated 19.09.2024 issued by the 5th respondent and Ref. No. MMR/SK/P.14/24/2180 dated 21.09.2024 issued by the 6th respondent intimating the petitioner's due date of retirement as 31.05.2025 though the date of retirement on 30.06.2030 as per date of birth as 25.06.1970 as recorded by the 7th class examination of Board is illegal, arbitrary and consequently, direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service as Pump Operator in the Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL) Bhadradri Kothagudem district, by granting all the service benefits to the petitioner and pass..."
2. Heard Sri G. Allabaksh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P. Sriharsha Reddy, learned Standing counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL) for respondent Nos.1 to 7 and the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology for respondent No.8.
2
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Badlifiller in the respondent Singareni Collieries Company Limited (for short "SCCL") on 23.08.1988. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the position of Tunnel Mazdoor, then to General Mazdoor and now currently as a Pump Operator. At the time of entering into service, authorities recorded Date of Birth of the petitioner as 25.05.1964 instead of 25.06.1970. According to his School Certificates or records, such as the Transfer certificate, Bona Fide Certificate dated 18.02.1999, 7th class Board examination Memo of Marks certificate, and his date of Birth Certificate dated 22.02.1999 issued by the Headmaster, ZPSS Garepally, Sulatanabad Mandal, Karimnagar District, his date of birth was recorded as 25.06.1970. Whereas the respondent company recorded his date of birth as 25.05.1964.
3(i) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the petitioner studied up to 7th class, he was under the bona fide impression that he would be continued in service up to 30.06.2030, i.e. till he attains the age of superannuation as per his school certificates. As a mistake was made in recording the petitioner's date of birth in the service records, the petitioner submitted a representation on 22.12.2023 stating that to continue him in service up to 31.05.2030 as his date of birth was recorded as 3 25.06.1970 in school records, but not as 25.05.1964. Nonetheless, this was not considered and on the other hand, on 22.12.2023, the respondents informed the petitioner orally that he would retire from service w.e.f. 30.05.2024 as his last working day, which is incorrect and false.
3(ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner noticed that a mistake was made in the preparation and maintenance of the service records, and the same is contrary to his school records. His age was 18 years as on the date of his appointment, i.e. 23.08.1988 vide Letter No.P.BPA/85.A/3307. As per school records, his date of Birth is 25.06.1970. Based on the school and Memo of Marks certificate issued by the 7th Class Examination of the Comprehensive Board, he shall continue in service up to 31.05.2030 to attain superannuation. Therefore, the entire action, apart from the above discrepancy in the preparation and maintaining the service records as well the advance intimation of retirement, suffers from incurable legal impediments and contrary to the date of birth rules and is in gross violation. The same was brought to the respondents' notice through a detailed representation dated 22.12.2023 with a request to correct his date of birth as 25.06.1970 and on that basis, continue him in service till 31.05.2030.
4
3(iii) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondents and orally requested to correct his age/date of birth recorded in the subsequent records, which do not align with the educational certificate issued by the Board and School certificates, duly enclosing the relevant documents and sought for correction of the same. Since the respondents had taken no action, the petitioner filed W.P.No.3814 of 2024, declaring the action of the respondents in the description of the age/date of birth of the petitioner as 24 years instead of 18 years as on the date of his appointment, i.e. 23.08.1988 thereby seeking to retire from service on 30.05.2024 without considering the petitioner's representation dated 22.12.2023, and this Court passed the following order:
"In view of the submission of the respective parties, without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent No. 5 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 22.12.2023 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
Thereafter, the 7th respondent issued a letter, Ref. No. MMR/SK/W15/2024/984 dated 28.03.2024 indicating his date of retirement as 25.05.2025. Again, the 5th respondent issued another letter Ref.No.MMR/PER/L/062/24/4242, dated 19.09.2024, stating 5 that there is no such provision for correction of date of birth based on the transfer certificate, which varies from the date of Birth recorded in the Company service record. Ultimately the 6th respondent has issued a letter, Ref. No.MMR/SK/P.14/24/2180 dated 21.09.2024 intimating his date of retirement as 31.05.2025. In this connection, he submitted that he studied up to 7th class, and his date of birth is recorded in the school as well as in the 7th class examination Board, which is 25.06.1970. According to that date, his date of retirement would be 30.06.2030 but not 31.05.2025.
3(iv) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents have wrongly recorded petitioner's date of birth as 25.05.1964. The respondents recorded the petitioner's date of birth as 25.05.1964, as per the Medical Advisor of the Company, and his age was shown as 24 years as on 22.08.1988. However, his date of birth is 25.06.1970, as per date of birth certificate dated 22.02.1999, issued by the Headmaster, ZPSS, Garrepally. To resolve the age dispute, the respondents must follow the rules dated August 3, 1959. To resolve age disputes of the employees of the Company, the Company has issued rules called as Singareni Collieries Company Limited age retirement rules with effect from 03.08.1959, which are as follows:
6
"THE PROCEDURE for DETERMINATION / VERIFICATON OF THE AGE OF THE EMPLOYEES AS FINALISED BY JBCCI IN 1981 IS AS FOLLOWS:
PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION/Verification OF AGE OF THE EMPLOYEES :
Par:1 (A) Determination of the age at the time at First of appointment
(i) Matriculates In the case of appointees who have passed Matriculation or equivalent examination, 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.
3(v) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the above rules, the petitioner is a non-matriculation but educated. His case has to be considered under the non- matriculation category. The petitioner studied in a recognized educational institution i.e. Zilla Parishad Secondary Grade School, Garregally. In his school records, his date of birth is recorded as 25.06.1970, and as such, the sub-clause (ii) of the age retirement rules applies to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner's date of retirement is 31.05.2030, but not 31.05.2025. 7
3(vi) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:
i) Division Bench judgment, dated 25.09.2024 Writ Appeal No.684 of 2024 of our own High Court.
ii) B. Komaraiah Vs. Singareni Collieries Company Limited 1 Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.
4. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 7 filed a counter stating 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 24 years as on 25.05.1988 by the Colliery Medical Officer in the Age Assessment Form as well in the Initial Medical Examination(IME) Form-O, and the same date of birth was recorded in the statutory documents such as Identity & Service Card, B- Register and CMPF Form-A. As per the rules of the respondent Company, once the Age/date of birth of the employee is recorded in the service records, it will be authentic and final, and whatever certificates/documents, such as Transfer Certificate, SSC, submitted by the employee after his appointment in the respondent Company, cannot be taken into consideration for correction of his date of birth.
1 1992(2) ALT 198 8 4(i) It is further pleaded that as per Implementation Instruction No.76 of the Joint Bipartite Committee for Coal Industry (JBCCI), the procedure in the determination of the age/ date of birth at the time of appointment or in respect of existing employees are as follows:
Determination of the age at the time of appointment:
(i) Matriculates In the case of appointees who have passed Matriculation or equivalent examination, 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) 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 allured under any circumstances."
4(ii) It is further pleaded that the petitioner herein was appointed in the respondent Company on 30.08.1988 and is presently working as a Pump Operator at Shantikhani Mine, 9 Mandamarri Area of the respondent Company. At the time of his appointment, he has not produced any proof of his age or educational certificates. As such, as per the rules of the respondent Company and JBCCI guidelines, if any employee is an illiterate or has not submitted any proof of his age/date of birth at the time of his appointment, his age/date of birth will be determined by the Colliery Medical Officer and the age/date of birth as determined by the Colliery Medical Officer shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances. In view of the same, since the petitioner had not submitted any proof of his age/date of birth at the time of his appointment, he was referred to the Colliery Medical Officer for assessment of his age/date of birth. The Colliery Medical Officer, as per the rules of the respondent Company and JBCCI guidelines, has assessed the age of the petitioner as 24 years as on 25.05.1988 i.e., 25.05.1964, and the petitioner has acknowledged it and the same was treated as final and subsequently recorded in all the statutory records of the respondent Company such as Form-O. Form-B Register, Service Book and EPR. Furthermore, the petitioner has self-declared his date of birth as 25.05.1964 in the CMPF Form-A, as well as in the Pension nominations (Forms PS-3 and PS-4). The petitioner is due for retirement from the services of the respondent Company on 10 attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 30.05.2025, and he is representing to change his date of birth at the fag end of his service, which it not tenable under law. The petitioner, during his entire period of service, has never represented for correction of his date of birth and has raised this issue at the fag end of his service with mala fide intentions.
4(iii) It is further pleaded that the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 22.12.2023 requesting for correction of his date of birth based on his VI class Transfer Certificate issued by ZPSS, Garrepally, Sulthanabad, Karimnagar District. The petitioner, throughout his entire period of service, has never approached or represented himself in connection with the discrepancy in his Age/Date of Birth. He also did not represent himself after the issuance of the superannuation notice, one year before his due date of retirement, which is not tenable.
4(iv) Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited Vs. T.P. Nataraja and others 2. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 2 (2021) 12 SCC 27 11
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also filed a reply affidavit inter alia reiterating the contents of the petition that the incorrect date of birth recorded by the respondents in the service records came to the petitioner's notice only after the respondents had intimated him orally his date of retirement as 31.05.2025. Thereafter, he approached the respondents and orally requested that his date of birth be corrected in the service records in consonance with his school certificates. According to school records, the petitioner's date of birth is 25.06.1970, and as per this, the date of retirement shall be 30.06.2030, but not 31.05.2025. FINDINGS OF THIS COURT:
6. There is no dispute that the petitioner joined in the respondents' Company on 23.08.1988, and at the time of appointment, he did not produce any certificate with regard to his date of birth. As per respondents' Company Rules and JBCCI guidelines, if any employee an illiterate or has not submitted any proof of his age/date of birth at the time of his appointment, his age/date of birth will be determined by the Colliery Medical Officer and the age/date of birth as determined by the Colliery Medical Officer shall be treated as the correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances. In view of the same, since the petitioner had not submitted any proof of his age/date of birth 12 at the time of his appointment, he was referred to the Colliery Medical Officer for assessment of his age/date of birth. The Colliery Medical Officer, as per the rules of the respondent Company and JBCCI guidelines, has assessed the age of the petitioner as 24 years as on 25.05.1988, i.e., 25.05.1964 and the petitioner has acknowledged it and the same was treated as final and subsequently recorded in all the statutory records of the respondent Company such as Form-O. Form-B Register, Service Book and EPR. The petitioner neither denied it nor questioned the said date of birth as determined by the Colliery Medical Officer till the fag end of his service.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that as per personal information provided by the petitioner to the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization, his wife's name is mentioned as M. Sunitha, and her date of birth is shown as 01.07.1968. If the petitioner's date of birth, as alleged by him, is in the year 1970, would he accept his wife's date of year as 1968? That itself shows that the petitioner did not submit any document with regard to his date of birth at the time of his appointment. As per the respondents' Company Rules and JBCCI guidelines, the entire record was prepared, and the petitioner signed all the forms without any protest. In view of the same, it is made clear that the respondent 13 Company did not make any incorrect entry regarding the date of birth of the petitioner is concerned.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Division Bench judgment, dated 25.09.2024 Writ Appeal No.684 of 2024 of our own High Court(1st supra) wherein it is observed that in case of dispute with regard to the age of an employee, the same has to be referred to the Age Determination Committee to resolve the same.
In the case on hand, since the petitioner did not produce any record regarding his date of birth at the time of his appointment, he was referred to the Colliery Medical Officer for assessment of his age and date of birth. The Colliery Medical Officer, as per the rules of the respondent Company and JBCCI guidelines, has assessed the petitioner's age as 24 years as on 25.05.1988, i.e., 25.05.1964. As such, the above judgment does not apply to the case on hand.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in B. Komaraiah (2nd supra), wherein it was observed as follows:
"....the impugned order cannot be sustained nor can the determination of the age of the petitioner arrived at by the Age Determination Committee without considering the Transfer Certificate be considered as correct. The 1st respondent is therefore directed to consider the request of the petitioner for correction of the date of birth on the basis of the Transfer 14 Certificate which the petitioner had produced. Admittedly, the original of that Certificate was issued prior to the date of his entry into service. The 1st respondent shall consider the effect of that certificate and correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the service record, so as to enable him to continue in service till he attains age retirement determined on a consideration of the above certificate. There will be direction that till such time a final decision is rendered, petitioner shall be continued in service."
In the above case, the Transfer Certificate was issued before his date of appointment. At that juncture, this Court directed to consider the Transfer Certificate. There are several judgments of the Apex Court that for the determination of date of birth, a Transfer Certificate is not the basis.
In the case on hand, the petitioner did not produce any document to prove his date of birth at the time of his appointment. As stated supra, the Colliery Medical Officer, as per the rules of the respondent Company and JBCCI guidelines, has assessed the age of the petitioner as 24 years as on 25.05.1988 i.e., 25.05.1964. Hence, the above case does not apply to present set of facts.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd., (stated supra) wherein at para No.11 it is observed as follows:
15
"11. Considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court the law on change of date of birth can be summarized as under:
(i) application for change of date of birth can only be as per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable;
(ii) even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right;
(iii) application can be rejected on the ground of delay and laches also more particularly when it is made at the fag-end of service and/or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation."
In the case on hand, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent authorities informing them about his date of superannuation. However, at the time of appointment, he did not produce any document to confirm his date of birth. Hence, the question of correction of date of birth does not arise. As such, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 3rd day of July, 2025 BDR 16 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 31425 of 2024 Date:03.07.2025 BDR