Mahesh Baiga vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited
2025 Latest Caselaw 124 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Mahesh Baiga vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited on 6 May, 2025

                                                1

SMT
NIRMALA
RAO




                                                               2025:CGHC:20831

                                                                           NAFR

                       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                       WPS No. 612 of 2017


          1 - Mahesh Baiga S/o Shri Shankar Baiga, Aged About 55 Years R/o Qtr. No.
          714, Miners Quarter, Double Story Post Bijuri, Police Station Bijuri, Tahsil
          Kotma, District Anuppur Madhya Pradesh , Madhya Pradesh.
                                                                      ... Petitioner

                                              versus
          1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman Cum Managing
          Director, South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh,
          Chhattisgarh

          2 - Director Personnel, South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Head Quarters, Seepat
          Road,     Bilaspur,   Chhattisgarh,   District   :   Bilaspur,  Chhattisgarh

          3 - Sub Area Manager, South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Baheraband, Sub Area,
          Hasdeo Area, District Koriya Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur),
          Chhattisgarh

          4 - Senior Manager Mine/ Manager, South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd.,
          Baherabasnd, U. G. Colliery, Baheraband, Sub Area, District Koriya,
          Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
                                                                      ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate.

For Respondents : Shri Shailendra Shukla, Advocate alongwith Shri Nitikesh Gupta, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06.05.2025

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:

"10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner.

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 04.09.2016 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent no. 4.

10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be further pleased to direct the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 01.01.1963 in his service record.

OR

10.4 That, the Hon'ble may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to refer the case of the petitioner to the ADC in accordance with the provision of I.I. No. 76.

10.5 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be further pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to retire the petitioner considering his date of birth as 03.02.1957 and allow the petitioner to continue his services till his date of superannuation considering the his date of birth as 01.01.1963.

10.6 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially the

petitioner was appointed as a Casual Worker under the

respondents on 3.2.1987. His age was recorded as 30 years in

the service record whereas, as per school record, his date of birth

is 1.1.1963. He would contend that his date of birth 1.1.1963 is

recorded in his driving licence and Aadhaar Card. He would

further submit that the age of the parents of the petitioner was

shown as 45 and 40 years, respectively in service record, which

appers to be erroneous. He would contend that in Form-B and

Forms P.S.-3 & P.S.-4 of the service record, the age of the

petitioner was entered as 11.11.1961. He would further submit

that in the year 1973, a Bipartite Committee was constituted to

resolve disputes between the Company and its employees. He

would submit that agreements under the National Coal Wage

Agreement (NCWA) were signed from time to time and that

Instruction No.76 of NCWA-III prescribes the procedure for

determination and verification of the age of an employee. He

would further submit that the petitioner approached the respondent

authorities to take action on his application dated 25.8.2014

according to Implementation Instruction No.76. He would contend

that the petitioner sent reminders on 24.7.2016 & 8.8.2016 but till

date, no decision has been taken. The petitioner ultimately retired

from service on 28.2.2017.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would

oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He

would submit that the age of the petitioner was recorded as

30 years on 3.2.1987 and that the petitioner retired from service

on 28.2.2017 on attaining age of superannuation. He would

submit that the petitioner put his thumb impression on the medical

examination report dated 11.12.1986 where his age was recorded

30 years. He would also submit that the petitioner moved an

application for correction of his date of birth at the fag end of his

service career. He would submit that the petition deserves to be

dismissed.

4. Heard counsel appearing for the parties and perused the

documents present on record.

5. In the matter of Jai Prakash Singh vs. South Eastern Coal

Fields and Others in W.A. No. 480 of 2023 dated 14.3.2024, the

Hon'ble Division Bench has held that there is no doubt that the

employer can take recourse of correction of date of birth of any of

its employees, but he should be in possession of satisfactorily

admissible and irrefutable piece of evidence with him. The

relevant paras 28, 29, & 30 read thus:-

"28.There is no doubt that the Employer can take recourse of correction of date of birth of any of its Employees, but he should be in possession of satisfactorily, admissible and irrefutable piece of evidence with him, particularly, when the Employer wants to correct date of birth recorded by one of its Employees, in service record of any other Employee at the time of entering into the service of that particular Employee.

29.In the instant case, it is the employer who suspected the date of birth recorded in service record. The employee is having matriculation certificate with same date of birth as recorded in service record, i.e., 01.07.1959. The certificate is not

questioned by the respondent-employer which is one of the documents as mentioned in Implementation Instruction No.76 to be authentic document for ascertaining the age.

30.The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-employee relying on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited Vs. T.P. Nataraja & others (supra) by holding that at the fag end of his career the petitioner/appellant has challenged the date of birth and considering the nature of dispute the writ petition has been dismissed. Facts of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure case (supra) are on different footing than the facts of the present case. In the present case from the year 1976 till 2000, the date of birth of the appellant-employee was mentioned in his service record as 01.07.1959 and only on the basis of a letter issued by the Ministry of Coal, Government of India dated 01.02.1999, they have altered the date of birth of the appellant-employee unilaterally as 28.02.1958 vide order dated 12.05.2000. It is not a case that the appellant-employee has challenged his date of birth in the fag end of his service career. But it is a case where the Respondent/employer has unilaterally altered his date of birth after 24 years of his service and the petitioner/employee wants to correct in its original position for which he is having matriculation certificate."

6. In the matter of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development

Limited v. T. P. Nataraja and others connected matters decided

on 21.09.2021 in Civil Appeals No. 5720 & 5721 of 2021, while

dealing with the issue of date of birth in para 10, it was held as

under:-

"10. 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 latches 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."

7. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the matter of South

Eastern Coalfields Limited and others v. Ikramuddin [WA

No.384 of 2021], relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court rendered in the matter of T. P. Nataraja (supra) in

para-14 held as under:-

"14. Therefore, applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, the representation made by the writ petitioner seeking change of his date of birth or to refer his case to the Age Determination Committee was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches also and as such the respondent/writ petitioner was not entitled for any relief. The order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be and is accordingly set aside."

8. From a perusal of the documents placed on record, it can be

inferred that the petitioner moved an application for correction of

the date of birth in the service record at the fag end of his service

career, and he failed to place admissible and irrefutable piece of

evidence in support of his contention.

9. Considering the above-discussed facts and the law-laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this High

Court, no case is made out for grant of relief. Accordingly, the

present petition is dismissed. Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi