[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Sub Area Manager vs Rameshwar Pathak (Dead) Through Lrs. ... on 24 February, 2026
1
MP NO. 4967 OF 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
MISC. PETITION NO. 4967 OF 2022.
THE SUB AREA MANAGER AND OTHERS
Versus
RAMESHWAR PATHAK (DEAD) THROUGH LR.S
SMT. SHAKUNTALA PATHAK AND OTEHRS.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Ms. Kanak Gaharwar - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri K.C. Ghildiyal- Senior Advocate with Shri Karnik Singh- Advocate for the
respondents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(O R D E R)
(Reserved on : 21/01/2026)
(Pronounced on: 24/02/2026)
The present petition has been filed by the employer-South Eastern Coalfields
Limited (for short "SECL") being aggrieved by the award dated 22.12.2021 passed
by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (for short
CGIT), thereby the Labour Court has allowed the reference proceedings initiated at
the instance of the respondent/workman and directed that the date of birth of
workman/respondent be reckoned as 01-07-1957, as recorded in his matriculation
certificate, which is in consonance with the provisions as prescribed in
Implementation Instructions No. 76 (for short "I.I.No.76"), and further held him
entitled to wages and retiral benefits accordingly.
2. The facts in brief for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that
the workman instituted a case before the CGIT on the grounds that he was initially
MP NO. 4967 OF 2022
appointed as General Majdoor in the year 1978 and at the time of appointment, his
date of birth was recorded as 25 years as on 13-12-1978 and accordingly, the date
of birth was recorded as 13-12-1953, whereas his actual date of birth as per High
School Certificate was 1-7-1957 and the said Certificate was issued in the year
1971. As per the age, as recorded in the matriculation certificate, his
superannuation would be 01-07-2017, but his date of birth has been reckoned as
13-12-1953 and he has been found to have attained his age of 60 years on 13-12-
2013.
3. It was mentioned that in various service records, the date of birth
continued to be mentioned as 13.12.1953 which was erroneous and it should have
been 01.07.1957 and later on when the workman had pointed out the
discrepancy, then in some documents, his date of birth was recorded as 01-07-
1957. Most importantly, it is argued that since the workman was subsequently
promoted to ministerial cadre in the year 1981 as Tub-Writer and then Clerk
Grade-II in 1984 and Clerk Grade-I in 1987, then all this was on the basis of the
same Matriculation certificate which mentions his date of birth as 01-07-1957, but
for the purpose of date of birth, the said matriculation certificate has not been given
effect to. He further contended that somewhere in the year 1987, he filled up his
date of birth in the service excerpt as 01-07-1957, but despite that he has been
informed that he will be retired on 31-12-2013 by treating his date of birth as 13-
12-1953. He filed W.P. No. 14501/2011 before this Court and this Court vide order
dated 06.10.2012 had directed the respondents to consider his representation, but
MP NO. 4967 OF 2022
upon erroneous rejection of the representation by the Age Determination
Committee vide their order dated 0.02.2013, he again approached this court in WP
No.20196/2013 in which initially stay was granted and he continued to be in
service, but later on he said the petition was disposed of 23.03.2015 holding that
the question of date of birth is highly disputed question and therefore the petitioner
may take recourse to the remedies under the Industrial Law and with this liberty,
this Court disposed of the petition. After this petition was disposed of on
23.03.015, immediately thereafter the SECL relieved him from duties on
08.04.2015. These events led him to challenge the aforesaid relieving from
services and further seeking superannuation on proper date of birth, before the
CGIT.
4. On the aforesaid assertions, the case was contested by the workman
for the reliefs as sought by him.
5. The petitioner SECL filed their reply in the proceedings and in the
reply it was contended by the petitioner-SECL that the High Court in W.P. No.
14501/2011 had directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for date of birth
and thereafter the age determination committee had considered the matter as per
I.I. No. 76 by following the procedure led therein. It was contended that age
determination committee rightly did not consider the matter as per clause A (i)
which is for matriculates but rightly considered it as per clause A (iv) which is for
illiterates because at the time of entry in service, the workman had projected
himself to be illiterate and had not disclosed his educational certificate. The
MP NO. 4967 OF 2022
workman cannot take benefit of his own wrong and seek benefit of some date of
birth recorded in some educational certificate when at the time of initial entry in
employment, he did not declare himself to be literate person but had declared
himself to be illiterate. Apart from reiterating the submissions made before the
CGIT, It is vehemently contended before this Court that had the workman declared
himself to be literate person, then he would not have been appointed as General
Majdoo. It is contended that if a person who upon declaration of his educational
qualification would become disqualified then subsequently after getting
appointment he cannot seek benefit of age recorded in educational
certificate because his initial appointment was by suppression of relevant facts.
Reliance is placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SECL Vs.
Ram Niranjan Patel (Civil Appeal No. 189/2025) to submit that the employee
cannot take benefit of his own suppression of relevant facts.
6. Heard.
7. In the present case, the employee had approached the CGIT with the
complaint that his actual date of birth as per matriculation certificate is 01-07-
1957, which has erroneously been recorded by the petitioner, SECL as 13.12.1953
which is not on any basis, but arbitrarily recorded at the time of entry in service by
mentioning his age to be 25 years as on 13-12-1978, on which date he initially
entered service as General Majdoor.
8. The CGIT held that the respondent is entitled to be superannuated as
per date of birth of 01-07-1957, which is recorded in matriculation
MP NO. 4967 OF 2022
certificate, because the age determination committee erroneously did not rely on
clause A(i), but relied on clause A(iv) which is for illiterates. The relevant clauses
A(i) and A(iv) are as under:-
(A) Determination of the age at the time of appointment
i) Matriculates.
In the case of appointees who have passed Matriculation or equivalent
examinations, the date of birth recorded in the said certificate shall be treated as
correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances.
iv) Illiterate.
In the cases of appointees not covered under the fore-going clauses, the date
of birth will be determined by the Colliery Medical Officer keeping in view any
docu-mentary and other relevant evidence as produced by the. appointee. Date of
birth as determined shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be
altered under any circumstances.
9. Admittedly clause (i) is for matriculates and clause (iv) is for
illiterates, and once the person is matriculate, then no further inquiry is to be
carried out, and only in case of illiterates, inquiry is to be carried out. For
matriculates, the date of birth as mentioned in the matriculation certificate has to
be accepted as true.
10. The age determination committee did not accept the date of birth as
recorded in the matriculation certificate by holding him to be illiterate, considering
that he would have been disqualified to be appointed in the year 1978 if he had
disclosed his actual qualification. However, despite repeated queries of this court,
the learned counsel for the petitioner/ SECL was unable to point out any provision
in the service rules that disqualifies a literate person to work as a general majdoor
MP NO. 4967 OF 2022
in the petitioner/SECL. The court cannot infer anything in the rules, once the rule
is not before the Court.
11. Even assuming that there is such a rule and the judgment in the case
of Ram Narendra Patel (supra) would apply, even then in the peculiar facts of this
case, the aforesaid judgment would not apply for reasons more than one. The
workman in the present case was initially appointed in the year 1978 as general
Majdoor, but within three years he was appointed on the post of Tub Writer which
is a ministerial post, and is not meant for illiterates, because the entries have to be
recorded by Tub Writer in the records.
12. This conversion of post from general Majdoor to ministerial post as
Tub Writer must have been on the basis of educational certificate, and if the
petitioner thought that while procuring appointment, the respondent has made any
suppression of fact, then at that point of time only, i.e. in the year 1981, while
upgrading him to a ministerial post, his services could have been terminated but
the SECL decided to give him the higher post i.e. the ministerial level post by
giving effect to his educational qualification.
13. When the SECL, as far back as in the year 1981, gave effect to his
educational qualification, then at the time of superannuation, the SECL is estopped
from ignoring the same educational certificate on the basis of which the respondent
worked on ministerial post from 1981 onwards till 2015. Even on the basis of same
educational certificate, the petitioner SECL gave him all the benefits of ministerial
cadre, and not only that, but he was also subsequently promoted twice over in
MP NO. 4967 OF 2022
ministerial cadre. Now the petitioner SECL is estopped from refusing to recognize
the date of birth mentioned in the same educational certificate. It is not the case
that an employee was appointed as Mazdoor and he retired as Mazdoor. During
course of hearing, this court pointedly asked learned counsel for the
petitioner whether there is any other educational certificate on basis of which the
respondent was promoted to ministerial post, and which mentions the date of birth
as 13.12.1953, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner had no answer to
this query.
14. The respondent was initially appointed in the year 1978, and then he
was transferred to Somna Mines, and then to Bijuri Mines, all within the
jurisdiction of SECL. Various documents were prepared during course of his such
transfer and the counsel for the petitioner had relied on various such documents to
indicate that either age is written as 25 years on 13-12-1978 or simply as 13-12-
1953 and in various forms, the respondent/ workmen had signed on such dates.
15. So far as the respondent/workmen having signed on such formats,
etc., in statutory forms sent to Coal Mines Provident Fund (CMPF), that cannot be
read as estoppel because in absence of making signatures on whatever was
recorded in the record of the petitioner, such statutory form would not have been
filled up and forwarded to the concerned authority and the employee had no option
but to sign on such date which was in accordance with what had been recorded in
the service record and the employee had no option to write any different date of
birth.
MP NO. 4967 OF 2022
16. However, when the document and Exhibit M/8 is seen, it is the
service biodata filled up in the year 2000 and in this service biodata, though the
date of birth is recorded as 13-12-1953, but the educational qualification is
recorded as High School. Not only this, but in the document Exhibit W/10, which
is the service excerpt filled up on 18-08-1987, the date of birth is mentioned as 25
years on 13-12-1978, which has been scored out to 01-07-1957, which was
contested by counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the scoring out was
unauthorized. However, in the overleaf portion of this same document Exhibit
W/10, some authority on 25-01-2004 has made a note that on the basis of mark
sheet, corrections have been made under orders of Senior Personnel
Officer. Therefore, from a perusal of this document, it does appear that the
respondent/workman has been contesting his date of birth at least since the year
2000 and the educational certificate was in knowledge of the petitioner at least
since the year 1981, when he was given the post of Tub Writer.
17. In view of the above, it does not seem to be the case of the employee
for the first time creating a dispute as to date of birth at the fag end of his career,
but it is a case wherein at least 17 years prior to the date of superannuation as per
the date of birth claimed by him, he had been projecting his true date of birth.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v.
Chhota Birsa Uranw, (2014) 12 SCC 570 has held that a person representing
since last 20 years before date of superannuation for correction of date of birth,
such request cannot be stated to be a request made at fag end of service career and
MP NO. 4967 OF 2022
cannot be thrown out on the ground of delay, and being not maintainable. It is
further held in the aforesaid case that an employee who has been wronged should
not be denied his rights. The Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
" 8. In the corpus of service law over a period of time, a certain
approach towards date of birth disputes has emerged in wake of the
decisions of this Court as an impact created by the change in date of birth
of an employee is akin to the far-reaching ripples created when a single
piece of stone is dropped into the water. This Court has succinctly laid
down the same in Home Deptt. v. R. Kirubakaran [Home Deptt. v. R.
Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 449 : (1994) 26
ATC 828] , which is as under : (SCC pp. 158-59, para 7) "7. An application
for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the tribunal or
the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned. It need
not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth
of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others
waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in
this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as,
because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned,
continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers
who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose their
promotions for ever. Cases are not unknown when a person accepts
appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior.
According to us, this is an important aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by
the court or the tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant
in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such, unless a clear case, on
the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made
out by the respondent, the court or the tribunal should not issue a direction,
on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any
such direction is issued, the court or the tribunal must be fully satisfied that
there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for
correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure
prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. If no rule or
order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such
application has to be filed, then such application must be filed within the
time, which can be held to be reasonable. The applicant has to produce the
evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof
relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is
on the applicant, to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his
service book. In many cases it is a part of the strategy on the part of such
public servants to approach the court or the tribunal on the eve of their
retirement, questioning the correctness of the entries in respect of their
dates of birth in the service books. By this process, it has come to the notice
MP NO. 4967 OF 2022
of this Court that in many cases, even if ultimately their applications are
dismissed, by virtue of interim orders, they continue for months, after the
date of superannuation. The court or the tribunal must, therefore, be slow in
granting an interim relief for continuation in service, unless prima facie
evidence of unimpeachable character is produced because if the public
servant succeeds, he can always be compensated, but if he fails, he would
have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and merely caused
injustice to his immediate junior."
The same approach had been followed by this Court while deciding on date
of birth disputes irrespective of the relief being in favour of the workman or the
employer. (See State of Punjab v. S.C. Chadha [(2004) 3 SCC 394 : 2004 SCC
(L&S) 469] , State of U.P. v. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya [(2005) 6 SCC 49 : 2005
SCC (L&S) 794] , State of Gujarat v. Vali Mohd. Dosabhai Sindhi [(2006) 6 SCC
537 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1445] and State of Maharashtra v. Gorakhnath Sitaram
Kamble [(2010) 14 SCC 423 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 582] .)
9. Another practice followed by the courts regarding such disputes is that
date of birth of an employee is determined as per the prescribed applicable rules or
framework existing in the organisation. Even this Court in spite of the
extraordinary powers conferred under Article 136 has decided date of birth
disputes in accordance with the applicable rules and seldom has the Court
determined the date of birth as it is a question of fact fit to be determined by the
appropriate forum. (See State of Maharashtra v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble
[(2010) 14 SCC 423 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 582] , High Court of Madras v. M.
Manickam [(2011) 9 SCC 245 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 588 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S)
464] and High Court of A.P. v. N. Sanyasi Rao [(2012) 1 SCC 674 : (2012) 1 SCC
(L&S) 310] .)
10. As stated earlier, this Court needs to decide the manner in which date of
birth has to be determined. It is the case of the appellant that as the respondent
raised the dispute at the fag end of his career and as there exists a set of records
being the Form B register which is a statutory document in which the date of birth
has been verified by the respondent himself twice, other non-statutory documents
should not be given precedence and the orders of the High Court must be set aside.
This claim of the appellant does not stand in the present matter. As determined, the
dispute was not raised at the fag end of the career; on the contrary, it was raised in
1987 almost two decades prior to his superannuation when he first came to know of
the discrepancy. It has been held in Mohd. Yunus Khan v. U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd.
[(2009) 1 SCC 80 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 83] , that : (SCC p. 84, para 14)
"14. ... An employee may take action as is permissible in law only after
coming to know that a mistake has been committed by the employer." Thus, the
case of the respondent should not be barred on account of unreasonable delay".
19. In the present case, the dispute was raised 17 years prior to date of
superannuation as per claimed date of birth, and it is not a case of request made at
MP NO. 4967 OF 2022
fag end of service career. The petitioner employer itself granted a Ministerial post
to the respondent on basis of same marksheet, then ignoring same marksheet for
date of birth, cannot be given stamp of approval by this Court.
20. Not only this, but one more fact is very much relevant in view of
which now the petitioner cannot argue that the workmen could not have prayed for
modification or correction of date of birth, because WP No. 14501/2011, was
decided with consent of both the parties and in the said order which was passed
with consent of the parties, it had been recorded by this court that the workmen
shall submit a representation, which shall be decided by considering the documents
of age of the workmen, this court passed the following order.
"With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is hereby disposed
of with the direction that the petitioner shall submit a fresh representation before
the General Manager, Bijuri, Area Hasdev, District Anooppur and the respondent
shall consider his representation and decide within three months from the date of
receipt of the representation by considering the documents of age of the
petitioner."
21. In view of the aforesaid specific order of the High Court, now it can
be stated by the petitioner that the workman had no right to raise the issue at the
fag end of his career, because this court had specifically directed the petitioner to
consider the issue as per the documents.
22. It is true that no correction of date of birth once accepted by the
employer can be made but correction of mistake can always be made and it is a
classic case where though the employer had promoted the workman to ministerial
post by giving effect to his educational qualification, but the same employer
refused to give effect to the date of birth mentioned in the same educational
MP NO. 4967 OF 2022
certificate for the purpose of date of superannuation. The employer did not have
any other document in its possession to justify the age as claimed by the employer,
except one medical examination wherein the age of the workman was estimated to
be between 55-60 years of age which would justify the date of 13-12-1953 as well
as the date of 01-07-1957 and therefore this document has no value at all.
23. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, the CGIT has not
erred in passing the impugned award and granting the requisite relief to the
workman, holding him entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years by
affirming his date of birth to be 01-07-1957 and granting him all the consequential
benefits.
24. Resultantly, causing no interference in the impugned award, the
petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
MISHRA
