Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sushil Kumar Singh vs The Chairman/Managing Director on 30 October, 2023
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 30 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 4363 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH S/O SHRI SAHDEO SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SURVEY MAZDOOR
RAJNAGAR R.O. COLLIERY ANUPPUR VILLAGE AND
POST MAHGAWA, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI P.K. MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE CHAIRMAN/MANAGING DIRECTOR SOUTH
EASTERN COAL FIELD LTD. SEPAT ROAD
BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH)
2. DIRECTOR (PERSONNEL) SOUTH EASTERN COAL
FIELD LTD. SEPAT ROAD BILASPUR
(CHHATTISGARH)
3. SR. PERSONNEL OFFICER OFFICE OF
SUPTD/M ANAGER RAJNAGAR R.O COLLIERY
HASDEO ARERA P.O. RAJNAGAR, R.O. COLLIERY,
DISTRICT ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. KANAK GAHARWAR - ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India while praying for following reliefs:-
(i) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in nature of 'Mandamus'
Signature Not Verified
directing to the respondents to record correct date of birth of the
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 11/3/2023
4:58:12 PM
petitioner as per Higher Secondary School Certificate i.e. 07.11.1963 in
place of 28.02.1959.
(ii) Consequently this Hon'ble Court may kindly be direct to the
respondents to decide representation/application submitted vide dated
23.07.2016 (Annexure P/5).
(iii) The information issued vide dated 03.07.2018 (Annexure P/7) may
kindly be quashed and the respondent may kindly be directed to continue
petitioner in service upto the date of 07.11.2023.
(iv) Any other order/relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner be also
granted.
(v) Costs of the petition be also granted.
2. The facts as detailed in the petition reveal that the petitioner herein was
appointed as Labour (Class IV employee) in the year of 1987 and there was no
requirement of submissions of educational certificate at the time of entering into
service. The date of birth of the petitioner was recorded by the respondents on
their own as 28.02.1959. In the year of 1994, the petitioner was directed to
submit his bio-data. In the bio-data contained in Annexure P/1, the date of birth
of the petitioner was again incorrectly mentioned as 28.02.1959. Thus, the
petitioner made representation before the respondents to correct the date of
birth of the petitioner in his service record. The respondent issued a letter dated
30.09.2005 (Annexure P/2) by which, the reply of the petitioner was sought.
The petitioner submitted his reply and requested to carry out the correction in
the date of birth of the petitioner as per Higher Secondary School Certificate.
Yet, no decision on the said request of the petitioner was taken by the
respondents and ultimately, the petitioner was superannuated w.e.f. 28.02.2019
by an order dated 03.07.2018 (Annexure P/7). Thus, assailing the order dated
03.07.2018 (Annexure P/7) with a further prayer of direction to the respondents
to allow the petitioner to continue in service till 07.11.2023, this petition has
been filed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 11/3/2023
4:58:12 PM
3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that in the present
case, the respondents were duty bound to consider the date of birth of the
petitioner as mentioned in Higher Secondary School Certificate which has been
brought on record as Annexure P/4. It is further contended by the counsel that
in the said certificate, the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as
07.11.1963 and the petitioner made a request as well before the respondents for
correction of the said date of birth but no correction was carried out by the
respondent. It is also contended by the counsel that the documents regarding
Dakhila Kharij register also shows that the date of birth of the petitioner is
07.11.1963. The respondents in a purely high handed and callous manner has
retired the petitioner without even considering the petitioner's grievance. Thus,
counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition filed by the petitioner
deserves to be allowed. In support of his contention, counsel has placed
reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.16049/2012(s) (Mannu
Kumar Singh vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and others) dated
29.07.2016 and also in the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case
of State of M.P. and Others vs. Shivpal Singh Uikey reported in 2014 (2)
MPLJ 440.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the
present petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. It is contended
by the counsel that the petitioner's service record reflects that the date of birth
of the petitioner from the very inspection was mentioned as 28.02.1959. The
service record of the petitioner contained in Annexure P/1 reflects that the
entries made in the service record were not disputed by the petitioner. It is also
contended by the counsel that when the petitioner submitted a representation, a
Signature Not Verified
notice dated 30.09.2005 was issued to the petitioner contained in Annexure P/2,
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 11/3/2023
4:58:12 PM
but the petitioner did not submit any reply to the same. Therefore, the
respondents while taking into consideration the age of superannuation of the
petitioner mentioned in the service record, has retired the petitioner. It is
contended by the counsel that the documents brought on record along with the
return reveal that it is unequivocally mentioned in the service record that the date
of birth of the petitioner is 28.02.1959.
5. It is further contended by the counsel that the petitioner was medically
examined as well and a medical certificate contained in Annexure R/2 reveals
that the petitioner was found to be aged about 28 years and the certificate was
issued on 28.02.1987. In the year of 1987, as per the date of birth, the petitioner
was aged about 28 years only. It is also contended by the counsel that the
documents brought on record as Annexure R/4 which are signed by the
petitioner himself reflect that at no point of time, the petitioner disputed his date
of birth which was recorded in his service record. It is contended by the
counsel that Annexure R/6 dated 08.04.2019 is also an order which has not
been assailed in the present petition by the petitioner by which, the petitioner
has been informed that his date of birth is rightly recorded as 28.02.1959. In
support of his contention, counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on
the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of Union of India vs. Harnam
Singh reported in (1993) 2 SCC 162, Bharat Coking Coal Limited and
Others vs. Shyam Kishore Singh reported in (2020) 3 SCC 411, Factory
Manager, Kirloskar Brothers Limited vs. Laxman reported in (2020) 3
SCC 419 and also decisions of this Court in Ramhit Sahu vs. State of M.P.
and Another reported in 2016 (2) MPLJ 426 and Mahendra Chanda vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others passed in W.P.No.5913/2015
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 11/3/2023
4:58:12 PM
dated 23.02.2023.
6. No other point is argued or pressed by both the parties.
7. Heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the
record.
8. The stand of the petitioner that his date of birth is 07.11.1963 and the
said contention is based on the Higher Secondary School Certificate which has
been brought on record as Annexure P/4. In the present case, the petitioner was
employed with the respondents in the year of 1987. The service record of the
petitioner contained in Annexure P/1 reflects that the petitioner's date of birth
was mentioned as 28.02.1959 and the said Annexure P/1 was signed by the
petitioner himself. A perusal of record further reflects that the petitioner moved
some representation, but details of the same, have not been given in the
petition. The representation was taken note of by the respondents and the
respondents issued a notice to the petitioner on 30.09.2005 (Annexure P/2). By
the said notice, the petitioner was called upon to explain as to why he did not
disclose his date of birth as was being projected by him. The reply to the said
notice is not on record, though there are averments in paragraph 5.5. of the
petition that the petitioner submitted reply to the same but the reply has not been
brought on the record by the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents even taking
note of the petitioner's representation, had issued him a notice, but the petitioner
did not explain that as to why at the time of appointment, he himself did not
raise any objection regarding his date of birth to be 28.02.1959. The petitioner
has also not clarified in the entire petition as to why he did not challenge the
notice dated 30.09.2005 (Annexure P/2) by which, the petitioner was called
upon to explain the non-disclosure of his alleged date of birth.
9. It is also evident from perusal of the documents filed with the return
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 11/3/2023
4:58:12 PM
that in each and every documents the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned
as 28.02.1959. Therefore, it is a case where the petitioner has sought correction
in his date of birth at the fag end of his service career.
10. Undisputedly the issue pertaining to correction of date of birth at the
fag end of service career, is no more res integra. The change in date of birth
recorded in the service book is not permissible at the fag end of service career
when an employee is at the verge of his retirement. [Please See: (2001) VI
SCC 52, AIR 1993 SC 1367 and (2010) XIV SCC 423].
11. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Mannu
Kumar Singh (supra) has been set aside by the Division Bench of this Court
vide an order dated 17.11.2017 passed in W.A.No.783/2016 (South Eastern
Coalfields Limited vs. Mannu Kumar Singh). Therefore, the reliance on the
decision of Mannu Kumar Singh (supra) is misplaced. So far as the decision of
Shivpal Singh Uikey (supra) is concerned, in the said case the department itself
had undertaken the exercise to correct the date of birth of employee concerned
whereas in the present case, no such eventuality exists. Hence, the judgment of
the Division Bench of this Court in Shivpal Singh Uikey (supra) does not come
to aid of the petitioner.
12. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court does not find any ground
to interfere with the order of superannuation of the petitioner and therefore, no
relief can be extended to the petitioner.
13. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 11/3/2023
4:58:12 PM
JUDGE
sp
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 11/3/2023
4:58:12 PM
