Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Awadh Yadav vs South Eastern Coal Field Ltd. on 1 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28637
1 WP-8303-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 1 st OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 8303 of 2024
RAM AWADH YADAV
Versus
SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELD LTD. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rajas Pohankar, learned counsel for the respondents.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed putting to challenge the action of
respondents in retiring the petitioner upon attaining the age of 60 years as
per date of birth 27/10/1964 whereas the petitioner claims to be born on
27/10/1967.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner entered
employment in SECL in the year 1989 and duly disclosure was made about
his educational qualification at that point of time. However, the date of birth
of the petitioner was erroneously recorded as 27/10/1964 in place of
27/10/1967 and the petitioner has been representing for correction in date of
birth since long i.e. since the year 2002 as per Annex.P/7 in terms of
objections invited by the company vide Annex.P/4 dated 06/12/2002.
However, the case of the petitioner was kept pending and despite order
passed by this Court in WP No.14252/2021 to decide the case within 90
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28637
2 WP-8303-2024
days, the respondents have not corrected the date of birth and on the contrary
they have rejected the case for correction of date of birth vide order
Annex.P/2 dated 02/11/2022 and consequently, retired the petitioner vide
Annex.P/1 dated 11/10/2022 w.e.f. 31/10/2024.
3. It is contended that the petitioner had filed marksheets of Class 8th
and Higher Secondary issued by the concerned Board and the respondents
have refused to verify the said marksheets and have even refused to look into
the said marksheets, which contained the date of birth 27/10/1967 and have
not even given effect to their implementation instruction No.76, which
permits correction of date of birth on the basis of educational
marksheets/certificates. By criticizing the impugned order Annex.P/2 it is
contended that the respondents have simply said that before 2002, the
petitioner failed to submit any application for correction of date of birth and
at the time of appointment, no such documents were produced and therefore,
the date of birth cannot be corrected. By placing reliance on various
documents on record, it is contended that the said reason is bad in law.
4. Per contra, counsel for the respondent-SECL has supported the
order on the ground that the petitioner disclosed himself to be illiterate at the
time of entry into service and by placing reliance on judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.21377/2024 (SECL Vs. Ram Niranjan Patel)
decided on 03/01/2024, it is contended that the case is of suppression of
educational qualification at the time of employment and the petitioner would
not have got employment if he had disclosed his qualification and therefore,
on the basis of such educational qualification certificates, no benefit can be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28637
3 WP-8303-2024
reaped by the petitioner.
5. Heard.
6. In the present case, it is not in dispute that implementation
instruction No.76 framed in terms of the National Coal Wage Agreement
duly provides for correction of date of birth and as per Clause B(i)(a) placed
on record as Annex.P/6, it is provided as under:
B. Review determination of birth in respect of listing employees
i) (a) In the case of existing employees relation Matriculation
Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by a recognized
Universities or Board or Middle Pass Certificate issued by the
Board of Education and/or Department of Public instruction and
admit cards issued by the aforesaid Bodies should be treated as
correct provided they were issued by the said
Universities/Board/Institutions prior to the date of employment.
7. The said instructions only provide that the employee should be
relying on the marksheets etc. if there are issued prior to date of appointment
and not thereafter. The petitioner relies on marksheet of Class 8th issued by
the State Government and Higher Secondary issued by Board of Secondary
Education, Bhopal (M.P.) in the year 1984. It is not in dispute that the
respondents have till date not verified the marksheets and have not verified
from the concerned authority/Board whether the date of birth indicated in the
said marksheets duly tallies with their records or not. The respondents have
only denied the case on the ground that the petitioner did not disclose his
education qualification at the time of appointment and he was disqualified if
he had disclosed the qualification. However, this is contended on the basis of
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Niranjan Patel
(supra) whereas no such defence is set up in the reply filed before this Court.
The copy of service book is placed on record as Annex.R/3 by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28637
4 WP-8303-2024
respondents as per which the service book seems to be prepared on
22/02/1989 mentioning the qualification of the petitioner to be Class 10th.
However, counsel for respondent submits that actually it is Class 9th in
roman letters which appears as Class 10th. Be it as it may be, but the service
book prepared in the year 1989 duly mentions educational qualification to
show that the petitioner is Class IX or Xth passed. The respondents have not
brought on record any marksheet of class 9th of the petitioner mentioning the
date of birth to be 27/10/1964.
8. Looking to the service book dated 22/02/1989, it is evident that the
petitioner did not suppress his education qualification on the date of
appointment and the respondent themselves recorded the qualification of the
petitioner in the service book.
9. A possibility was expressed by learned counsel for the respondents
that this qualification might have been inserted inserted later on. However,
no note is made in the service book that this entry has been made on some
later date nor it is so mentioned in the reply that the entry of education
qualification of petitioner was made at some later date as per declaration of
the petitioner on any later date. Therefore, this oral assertion of counsel for
the respondents cannot be accepted by this Court.
10. This Court asked the counsel for the petitioner to indicate whether
the petitioner would have been disqualified for appointment if he was class
IXth or Xth passed at the time of appointment. The counsel for the
respondents was not in position to point out to any provision applicable to
the petitioner for the post he was appointed which would have disentitled
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28637
5 WP-8303-2024
him for appointment being a person having qualification of class IXth or
Xth. On the contrary the service book itself indicates that the education
qualification of the petitioner was in knowledge of the respondents even at
time of appointment.
11. In view of the above, this case squarely falls within Clause B(i)(a)
of implementation instruction No.76. The case is not of suppression of
education qualification as was in the case of Ram Niranjan Patel (Supra)
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court because in the present case the service
book duly mentions the entry of education qualification of the petitioner. The
counsel for respondents has failed to point out any provision in the service
rules applicable to the post which would have disqualified the petitioner
being an educated person.
12. Consequently, it is held that the respondents have dealt with the
case of the petitioner in an illegal manner while passing the order Annex.P/2
rejecting his representation.
13. Resultantly, the petition is allowed with the following directions:
(i) The impugned order Annex.P/2 is set aside.
(ii) The respondents are directed to verify the date of birth mentioned
in the marksheets of Class VIIIth and High Secondary placed on record by
the petitioner from the concerning authority/Board.
(iii) Let this be done within a period of 30 days from the date of
production of copy of this order.
(iv) In case the date of birth of the petitioner is verified by the said
Board/authority to be 27/10/1967 by certifying the said
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28637
6 WP-8303-2024
marksheets/certificates, then the petitioner would be entitled to be taken back
in service and serve till 31/10/2027 and would also be entitled to all
consequential benefits and continuity in service except backwages which
would stand restricted to 50% from the date of retirement till the date of this
order. For rest of the period 100% wages shall be payable.
13. The petition is allowed with the above terms.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
RS
