Madhya Pradesh High Court
South Eastern Coal Field Ltd. vs Ghanshayam Patel on 18 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26214
1 WA-1495-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 18th OF JUNE, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 1495 of 2025
SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELD LTD. AND OTHERS
Versus
GHANSHAYAM PATEL
Appearance:
Ms. Kanak Gaharwar - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Swapnil Sohgaura - Advocate for the respondent [CAVEAT].
ORDER
Per: Vinay Saraf, Judge
1 . South Eastern Coal Field Ltd. has put to challenge the order dated
03.03.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WP No.14262/2023, whereby
the learned Single Judge directed the appellants to consider the request of
the respondent for correction of his date of birth in service record by taking
note of the certificates submitted by the petitioners within a period 45 days.
2. With the consent of the parties, arguments are heard for the purpose of
final disposal of the appeal.
3. Respondent joined the appellant organization on 27.09.1990 on the post
of 'General Majdoor'. In the service record the date of birth of the
respondent is recorded as 01.06.1965, whereas the respondent claimed that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26214
2 WA-1495-2025
his correct date of birth is 01.06.1969. The respondent submitted
applications/request letters/representations for correction of date of birth in
the service record as per educational certificates, however the same was not
accepted by the organization and consequently, the respondent preferred the
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking
direction to the organization to correct the date of birth as per the
matriculation certificate. In the petition the respondent claimed that he came
to know about the said mistake in the year 1995 and immediately on
14.08.1995 he submitted an application along with the copy of the
marksheet for correction of date of birth followed by the representations
dated 27.12.2015, 23.01.2021 and 20.05.2023. The respondent further
submits that his request was not considered by the organization and
consequently, he approached to the Writ Court. In reply, the appellants
opposed the claim of the respondent mainly on the ground that he raised the
dispute after a period of 33 years of service and after such a long period no
correction in date of birth is permissible.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that as
the respondent preferred the application for the correction of date of birth at
the fag end of career, the same cannot be accepted and no illegality
committed by the organization in not considering the request of the
respondent. She further submits that the respondent was appointed as
'General Majdoor' and an educated person could not be appointed at that post
therefore, the respondent himself did not disclose the educational certificates
and marksheets at the time of time of joining the organization and after a
period of 33 years the respondent made a prayer for correction in the date of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26214
3 WA-1495-2025
birth and as there was no merit in the representation, the same was not
accepted. To bolster her arguments, she relied on the judgment delivered
by the Supreme Court in the matter of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Ors. v.
Shyam Kishore Singh (2020) 3 SCC 411 and in SLP(C) No.21377 / 2024 on
03.01.2025 in the matter of South Eastern Coalfields Limited and Anr vs.
Ram Niranjan Patel. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the
in the year 1997 an opportunity was granted to the respondent to raise any
issue or dispute regarding the service record but no such issue or dispute was
raised by him and now after such a long period he cannot be permitted to
raise the issue and make a prayer for correction in the date of birth. She
prayed for setting aside the order passed by learned Single Judge.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent supported the order
passed by learned Single Judge.
6. After examination of the pleadings of the parties available on record, it
appears that in para No.5.5 of the petition the respondent specifically averred
that various representations were submitted for correction of date of birth as
per the marksheet on 14.08.1995, 27.12.2015, 23.01.2021 and 20.05.2023
and request was made by the respondent. In reply to that para 5.5 it was not
denied by the appellants that no such representation was received by the
appellants and on the contrary it was stated that there was no merit in the
representation, therefore, no action was required to be taken. From perusal
of the representations annexed with the original writ petition, it appears that
the receipts and acknowledgement are available. Representation dated
21.12.2015 was personally submitted as well as sent by registered post,
wherein the reference of earlier application dated 14.08.1995 was given and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26214
4 WA-1495-2025
therefore the findings of the learned Single Judge that first representation was
made by the respondent on 14.08.1995 appears to be correct and based on
material available on record. The respondent was originally appointed on
27.09.1990 and he raised the objection for the first time on 14.08.1995 and
since then he is making the request for correction in the date of birth and
therefore the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants
that at the fag end of career the respondent has made a request for change in
date of birth is contrary to the pleadings and documents available on record.
7. Respondent claimed the change in the date of birth on the basis of the
matriculation certifications and the same was opposed by learned counsel for
the appellants on the ground that respondent was appointed as 'General
Majdoor' and therefore he did not submit the educational certificates at the
time of joining the service and now he cannot be extended the benefit of
those educational certificates. She relied on the judgment of Supreme Court
delivered in the matter of Ram Niranjan Patel (Supra) wherein the Supreme
Court has said that when the appointment was made under illiterate
category and documents were not disclosed at the time of joining the
service, no benefit can be claimed on the basis of the educational
certificates.
8. In the present case, learned counsel for the appellants failed to
demonstrate that the respondent was appointed under the 'illiterate
category'. Even as per the service record, it appears that the educational
qualification of the respondent was shown as "BA" and the year of passing
was also disclosed as 1989, therefore arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellants that respondent was employed as a 'General
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26214
5 WA-1495-2025
Majdoor' under 'illiterate category' is not acceptable and the judgment
delivered in the matter of Ram Niranjan Patel (supra) is not applicable to the
case in hand.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of Supreme
Court delivered in the matter of Shyam Kishore Singh (Supra), wherein the
Supreme Court has held that at the fag end of the career the request for
correction of date of birth cannot be accepted, however as discussed
hereinabove the first request was made by the respondent to the Department
on 14.08.1995 followed by the subsequent requests therefore, the said
judgment is also not applicable helpful to the appellants.
10. By the impugned order after considering the material available on record,
learned Single Judge has issued a direction to the appellants to consider the
pending representation submitted by the respondent for correction of date of
birth and to follow the procedure as provided in the implementation
Instruction No.76 and to take a final decision taking note of the certificates
submitted by the petitioner for correction of his date of birth within a period
of 45 days. The said direction appears to be just and proper and based on the
due appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case.
11. We are in the full agreement with the findings recorded by the learned
Single Judge that the respondent submitted the request for correction in the
date of birth recorded in service record first time on 14.08.1995 along with
the copies of the educational certificates and therefore, his claim cannot be
denied on the ground that he made a request belatedly. From the perusal of
the matriculation certificate it appears that date of birth of respondent is
01.06.1969 and same has been recorded as 01.06.1965, and no document is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26214
6 WA-1495-2025
available on record on the basis of which, the date of birth was recorded in
the service record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we
do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge. The appeal deserves to the dismissed and consequently
hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SANJEEV SACHDEVA) (VINAY SARAF)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Akm
