Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ghanshayam Patel vs South Eastern Coal Field Ltd. on 3 March, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10276
1 WP-14262-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 3 rd OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 14262 of 2023
GHANSHAYAM PATEL
Versus
SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELD LTD. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Swapnil Sohgaura - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Anoop Nair - Senior Advocate with Ms. Disha Rohitas -
Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
The petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :
"(i) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue
writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to
correct the date of birth as per the matriculation certificate
issued to the petitioner i.e. 01.06.1969 in place of 01.06.1965.
(ii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue
writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to
correct the date of birth of the petitioner i.e. 01.06.1965 to
01.06.1969 as per terms of Clause B(i)(a) of Implementation
Instruction No.76.
(iii) Any other relief/order/direction/prod which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner along
with cost of entire litigation."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed on 27.09.1990 in
the respondent-department. He was having degree of Bachelor of Arts (BA)
at the time of entering into services. His date of birth entered by the
respondent-department in the service report is 01.06.1965 which is incorrect
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10276
2 WP-14262-2023
in terms of the matriculation and middle school certificates wherein his date
of birth is recorded as 01.06.1969. The petitioner submitted various
representations dated 14.08.1995, 27.12.2015, 23.01.2021 and 20.05.2023
requesting for correction of his date of birth but no action has been taken by
the authorities to decide the representation. On 01.04.2022, a letter has been
written by the respondents to the petitioner asking him to submit the
certificates of Class 8th, 10th, 12th, Graduation and Post-Graduation. The
petitioner in pursuance to the said letter on 02.04.2022 submitted certificates
of Class 8th, Class 11th and Graduation to the respondent-department and
requested for correction of his date of birth.
3. Petitioner's counsel has pointed out that in terms of Implementation
Instructions No.76(A) which deals with determination of the age at the time
of appointment and (B) thereof which stipulates review determination of date
of birth in respect of existing employees. It is argued that the petitioner is still
in service and due to retire in near future and he is making all possible efforts
to get his date of birth corrected since from the year 1995 but till date no
action has been taken by the authorities. Under these circumstances, the
respondents-authorities be directed to correct the date of birth of the
petitioner taking note of academic certificates i.e. higher secondary school
certificate of the petitioner.
4. On notice being issued, a reply has been filed on behalf of the
respondents denying the petition averments. Initial objection has been taken
with respect to alternative and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is contended that the petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10276
3 WP-14262-2023
entered into the employment on 27.09.1990 and at the relevant time, the date
of birth recorded in the service book is 01.06.1965. The petitioner has
approached this Court after a period of 33 years without there being any
explanation for the same. The petitioner is asking for correction in the date of
birth in the service record at the fag end of his service career as the petitioner
is due to retire this year only. It is submitted that the issuance of letter
(Annexure P/4) asking the petitioner to deposit the documents does not
create any right in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner kept quiet for a
considerable period of 33 years without approaching the Court, therefore, no
relief can be extended to the sleeping litigants. He has placed reliance upon
the judgments passed in the cases of Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs Shyam
Kishore Singh, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 411 and Karnataka Rural
Infrastructure Development Limited vs T.P. Nataraja, reported in (2021) 12
SCC 27.
5. Petitioner's counsel has refuted the contentions of the reply by filing a
rejoinder. It is argued that there are no lapses on the part of the petitioner as
he made all possible efforts to get his date of birth corrected since from the
year 1995 itself. The first representation which was made by the petitioner is
dated 14.08.1995. The authorities have failed to consider the representation.
Thereafter, the petitioner has been continuously making representations to
the authorities. It was only on 01.04.2022, the authorities have asked the
petitioner to deposit the documents. In pursuance to the same, the petitioner
immediately on 02.04.2022 deposited his academic certificates to the
respondent-department but despite the same, no action has been taken by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10276
4 WP-14262-2023
them. To buttress the submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgments
passed in the cases of Nirmala Singh vs South Eastern Coal Field Ltd. : WP
No. 33806 of 2024 decided on 29.11.2024 and Premnath Singh vs Western
Coal Fields Ltd. : WP No. 18071 of 2017 decided on 30.06.2022.
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
7. The only issue before this Court is whether the date of birth of the
petitioner entered into the service record can be corrected at the fag end of
his service career or not ?
8. It is not disputed that initial appointment of the petitioner in the
respondent-department was made on 27.09.1990. His date of birth was
entered in the service record as 01.06.1965 which is reflected from document
(Annexure P/1). However, if the said document (Annexure P/1) is seen, then
Column 11 whereof which deals with date of birth, wherein in figures, the
date of birth was recorded as "01.06.1965" whereas in words, it is written as
"First June Twenty Thousand Twenty Five" which is incorrect. The date of
birth of the petitioner recorded in the Higher Secondary School Certificate
issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh Bhopal as
01.06.1969.
9. The record indicates that the first representation which was made by the
petitioner seeking correction of his date of birth in the service records was
received by the respondent-department way back on 14.08.1995 and the
same is reflected from Annexure P/3. Another letter was sent through
Registered A/d to the respondent-department on 26.12.2015 and physically
submitted before the department on 21.12.2015. The seal and signature of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10276
5 WP-14262-2023
receiving authority are mentioned therein. Similar letter was received by the
authorities on 23.01.2021. Another letter was received on 04.08.2022. Again
on 20.05.2023 the letter was received in the respondent-department
requesting for correction in the date of birth. Vide Annexure P/4, a letter
written by Manager (Personnel) was sent to the petitioner requested him to
deposit certificates of Class 8th, 10th, 12th, Graduation and Post-Graduation
within three days to enable the authorities to consider the date of birth of the
petitioner. The same was deposited by the petitioner on 02.04.2022 but no
action has been taken by the respondents-authorities. Thus, it cannot be said
that the petitioner was sleeping over his rights and has never approached the
authorities seeking correction of his date of birth. It is not a case where at the
fag end of his service career, the petitioner is requesting the authorities to
correct his date of birth in the service book. Thus, the arguments raised by
the respondents are not acceptable.
10. The Implementation Instructions No.76 deals with determination of
the age at the time of appointment in terms of Clause (A) and review
determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees in per Clause
(B). In terms of Implementation Instructions No. 76, the mechanism for
recording/correction of date of birth is contemplated. The relevant clauses
read thus :
"(B) Review/determination of date of birth in respect of
existing employees.
i)(a) In the case of the existing employees Matriculation
Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10276
6 WP-14262-2023
said Universities/Boards/Institutions prior to the date of
employment.
i)(b) Similarly, Mining Sirdarship, Winding Engine or similar
other statutory certificates where the Manager had to certify
the date of birth will be treated as authentic.
Provided that where both documents mentioned in (i)(a)
and(i)(b) above are available, the date of birth recorded in (i)
(a) will be treated as authentic.
(ii) Wherever there is no variation in records, such cases will
not be reopened unless there is a very glaring and apparent
wrong entry brought to the notice of the Management. The
Management after being satisfied on the merits of the case will
take appropriate action for correction through Age
Determination Committee/ Medical Board.
(C) Age Determination Committee/Medical Board for the
above will be constituted by the Management. In the case of
employees whose date of birth cannot be determined in
accordance with the procedure mentioned in (B)(i)(a) or (B)(i)
(b) above, the date of birth recorded in the records of the
company, namely, Form B registers CMPF Records and
Identity Cards (untempered) will be treated as final, Provided
that where there is a variation in the age recorded in the
records mentioned above, the matter will be referred to the
Age Determination Committee/Medical Board constituted by
Management for determination of age.
(D) For Determination of the age, the Committee/Medical
Board referred to above may consider the evidence available
with the Colliery Management and/or adduced before it is the
employee concerned.
(E) Medical Board constituted for determination of age will be
required to assess the age in accordance with the requirement
of "Medical Jurisprudence" and the Medical Board will as far
as possible indicate the accurate age assessed and not
approximately.
(F) Where the Management (i.e.) Area Age Assessment
Committee consisting of General Manager, Personnel Manager
and Medical Officer in charge of the Area is satisfied that
there is a glaring disparity between the date of birth recorded
in the company records and the apparent age of the employee,
the cases may be referred to the Apex Medical determination
of age,
(H) After the assessment of the age by the Age Determination
Committee/Medical Board, the same will be computerised and
print out of the same will be given to the employee concerned
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10276
7 WP-14262-2023
and the unit from where the reference was received with a
month. If age is not, however, computerised, still the same
will be intimated to the employee concerned and the Unit
within a month.
(I) It was agreed that in cases where instead of date of birth,
year has been recorded, 1st July of the year will be deemed to
be the date of birth."
11. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chief Managing
Director, WCL vs Sheikh Yusuf : WA No. 228 of 2018 along with WA No.
232 of 2018 (Western Coalfields Limited vs Sheikh Yusuf) decided on
16.03.2018 had an occasion to consider Clause (B) of the Implementation
Instructions No. 76 and has held as follows :
"16. The strong reliance of the employee is on a judgment of
the Supreme Court in Chhota Birsa's case (supra).That was a
case where the employee disputed his date of birth in the year
1987 though in the present case as well the employee was
disputing his date of birth but after the determination of the
date of birth by the Age Determination Committee on
13.08.1996, the employee has not taken any recourse to legal
remedy. He submitted representation time and again and
another Age Determination Committee was constituted. The
Age Determination Committee constituted in terms of the
order of this Court, in its report dated 10.07.2015 has given the
approximate age from 50 to 55 years whereas the Instructions
contemplate that the age has to be specific and not by
approximation. Therefore, the report of Age Determination
Committee runs counter to the instructions issued and
therefore, cannot be made basis for correction of date of birth.
17. Still further, reliance of the employee is on three
documents; firstly, the service record No.1917 issued by the
Manager, Damua where the age of the employee was
mentioned as21 years as on 06.11.1983. Such record will not
rebut the correctness of the statutory Form-B under the Mines
Rules, 1955 for the reason that if the employee was 21 years of
age in 1983, there is no reason for the employer to give his
date of birth as 22.10.1956. At the time of appointment, there
was no reason for the employer to record a date which may not
be correct. There is no allegation of any mala fide or mischief
against any functionary of the employer. In absence of any
allegation that the date of birth was not correctly recorded in
statutory Form-B, the service record or certificate of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10276
8 WP-14262-2023
registration with Employment Exchange cannot be made basis
of holding that the date of birth was not correctly mentioned.
The school transfer certificate is again not a document whose
authenticity is not in dispute. There is no proof that such
document is a genuine document nor the Committee has
verified such certificate. The Age Determination Committee
has determined the age as 50 to 55 years, which is too wide a
range which can be relied upon to hold that the date of birth of
the employee was 24.05.1962.
18. The judgment in Chhota Birsa's case (supra) arises out of a
fact where two different dates were recorded by the Coal
Company i.e. one in Form-B as 15th February, 1947 and
another in the Mining Sirdarship where the date of birth was
recorded as February 6, 1950. Still further, in the said case, the
genuineness of the Matriculation certificate was verified to be
correct. It was issued in the same year as the date of
appointment; therefore, such certificate was taken into
consideration in terms of the Instructions, such certificate has
to be treated as authentic. Whereas in the present case, the
Matriculation certificate and the Higher Secondary School
certificate is much after employment of the employee in the
year 1983. The entire case is based upon the school leaving
certificate of Class V, which does not find mention as the
authentic document in the Instructions issued.
19. Since the report of the Age Determination Committee is
not in terms of the Instructions issued, which are binding
between the parties, the report of the Age Determination
Committee cannot be said to be legal and binding on the
appellants.
20. Consequently, both the appeals are allowed. The Writ
Petition No.10700/2016 filed by the employee is dismissed
whereas Writ Petition No.18348/2016 filed by the
appellants/employer is allowed."
12. The aforesaid procedure as contemplated under the Implementation
Instructions No. 76 has not been followed in the present case. As already
observed hereinabove that the petitioner is continuously writing the
authorities for redressal of his grievances i.e. correction of date of birth since
from the year 1995 itself. The authorities were duty bound to follow the
Implementation Instructions and should have considered the request of the
petitioner for correction of his date of birth in the year 1995 itself.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10276
9 WP-14262-2023
13. In the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs Chhota Birsa Uranw,
reported in (2014) 12 SCC 570 while considering the fact that the
application for seeking correction of date of birth was filed by an employee
long back and not at the fag end of his service career, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court took note of the aforesaid and has held as under :-
"14. We give due regard to the sensitive nature of date of birth
disputes and fully agree with the approach laid down in R.
Kirubakaran case [Home Deptt. v. R. Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp
(1) SCC 155 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 449 : (1994) 26 ATC 828] .
However, with an aim to prevent the cascading inconveniences
caused by a change of date of birth, a wronged employee
should not be denied of his rights especially when he has
adhered to the procedure laid down and attempted to avoid
litigation by resorting to in-house mechanisms. Public
corporations /departments should not benefit from their own
omission of duty. In the present case, the appellant Company
failed to follow the procedure as laid down in the
implementation instruction. It is the appellant's omission and
not the inaction of the respondent which led to the dispute
being raised in the courts at such a delayed stage. The attitude
of such corporations wherein to avoid the rectification of a
date of birth, litigation is unnecessarily prolonged just because
they have number of resources at their command, goes against
the grain of equity and duty towards society at large."
14. Further, this Court had an occasion to deal with the similar
controversy in the case of Nirmala Singh : WP No. 33806 of 2024 (supra)
and while dealing with the Implementation Instructions No.76, has
considered that the matriculation certificate carries more probative value. It
has been held as under :
"15. If the authorities are of the view that there is variants in
the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in the documents of
the Company to that recorded in the academic records then the
procedure as contemplated in Clause 'C' is to be followed. The
matter has to be placed before the Determination Committee or
before the Medical Board constituted by the management for
the further determination. The said aspect has not been
followed in the matter. No opportunity of hearing has been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10276
10 WP-14262-2023
granted to the petitioner while changing the date of birth of the
petitioner. Merely, the fact that document Annexure P/1 shows
that some intimation was given to the petitioner on 20.09.2021
is of no help to the respondents for the reasons that there is no
acknowledgment regarding supplying the said order to the
petitioner. Under these circumstances, the action taken by the
authorities in changing the date of birth of the petitioner is per
se illegal.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P.
and others State of M.P. and others v. Mohan Lal Sharma :
(2002) 7 SCC 719 have considered the aspect of date of birth
recorded in the matriculation certificate and has held that it
carries more probative value than that contained in the retired
Headmaster Certificate or any other horoscope. In the case of
M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.& Ors. v. Chhota Birsa Uranw :
(2014) 12 SCC 570 it was held that petitioner was able to
make out a case for indulgence and it was directed that the
correct date of birth of the petitioner as per his higher
secondary school certificate be noted in the service records and
consequential benefits be paid to the petitioner.
17. Similarly in the case of the General Manager South Eastern
Coalfields and others v. Avnish Kumar Tiwari : W.A.
No.614/2022 decided on 23.06.2022 placing reliance on the
judgment of passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shyam Kishore Singh :
(2020) 3 SCC 411 as well as in the case of M.L. Sharma
(supra) the Division Bench has dismissed the plea raised by
the employer.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar
v. State of M.P. : (2012) 9 SCC 750 as well as Jarnail Singh vs
State Of Haryana : AIR 2013 SC 3467 has considered the
aspect that in case of dispute with respect to the date of birth or
the age of the juvenile, the date of birth recorded in the
matriculation certificate is to be considered as a genuine
certificate. The said order has affirmed upto to the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as the SLP C No.14238/2023 filed by the
employer has been dismissed vide order dated 17.02.2023.
19. The Division Bench of Chattisgarh High Court in W.A.
No.480/2023 (Jai Prakash Singh v. South Eastern Coal Fields
and others) judgment dated 14.03.2024 has taken note of the
Implementation Instruction No.76 which permits rectification
of date of birth by treating the date of birth mentioned in the
school leaving certificate to be correct provided that such
certificate was issued by the educational institution prior to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10276
11 WP-14262-2023
date of employment.
20.Admittedly, in the present case the school leaving
certificate produced by the petitioner was prior to the date of
employment. Therefore, the date of birth recorded in the said
certificate has to be treated to be correct in view of the
Implementation Instructions No.76."
15. This Court is conscious of the fact that correction of date of birth
cannot be requested at the fag end of service career. But this analogy is not
applicable to the present facts of the case as the petitioner has moved the
authorities asking for correction in date of birth for the first time in the year
1995 and the aforesaid aspect could not be denied by the respondents'
counsel. It is the respondents who have not acted on the said application of
the petitioner. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner made an attempt to
correct the date of birth at the fag end of his service career.
16. Under these circumstances, it can safely be inferred that as the
petitioner was continuously approaching the respondents-authorities for
redressal of his grievances insofar as correction of date of birth is concerned,
the authorities, in all fairness, should have considered his case in terms of the
Implementation Instructions No. 76 and should have constituted a committee
for determination of date of birth of the petitioner. That has not been done in
the present case. It is argued that the petitioner has slept over his rights for a
considerable period of almost 33 years and it is only at fag end of the service
career, he is approaching the Court seeking correction in the date of birth.
The said argument cannot be accepted for the reason that the petitioner has
placed on record the documents that he was making his efforts to get the date
of birth corrected since from the year 1995.
17. In view of the foregoing discussion and considering the settled
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10276
12 WP-14262-2023
proposition of law on the subject, inaction on the part of the respondents-
authorities in not considering the representation of the petitioner is contrary
to the Implementation Instructions No.76.
18. In the result, the petition is disposed of directing the respondents-
authorities concerned to consider the pending representation submitted by
the petitioner for correction of date of birth and to follow the procedure as
provided in the Implementation Instructions No.76 and to take a final
decision taking note of the certificates submitted by the petitioner for
correction of his date of birth. The entire exercise be completed within a
period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
19. In above terms, the petition stands disposed of finally. No order as to
costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
VV
