Orissa High Court
Satnam Singh vs Mahanadi Coalfields Limited on 24 March, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.21087 of 2014
In the matter of an Application under
Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950
***
Satnam Singh
Aged about 37 years
Son of Chandan Singh
At present residing in
Quarter No.MQ-84
At/P.O.: Deulbera Colliery, Talcher,
District: Angul, Odisha. ... Petitioner
-VERSUS-
1. Mahanadi Coalfields Limited,
(A subsidiary of coal India Ltd.)
Represented through its
Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, Registered Office
At: Jagriti Vihar, Burla
District: Sambalpur.
2. General Manager (P&IR)
Mahanadi Coalfields Limited
At: Jagriti Vihar, Burla
District: Sambalpur.
3. General Manager,
Central Workshop (EXCV),
Mahanadi Coalfields Limited,
Talcher, District: Angul.
4. General Manager, (Mining)
Balaram OCP
Mahanadi Coalfields Limited
P.O.: Danara, District: Angul.
5. General Manager
Jagannath Area
Mahanadi Coalfields Limited
At/P.O.: Dera, Talcher
District: Angul.
6. Area Personnel Manager
Jagannath Area
Mahanadi Coalfields Limited
At/P.O.: Dera, Talcher
District: Angul.
7. Project Officer, Ananta
Mahanadi Coalfields Limited
P.O.: Dera, Colliery, Talcher
District: Angul. ... Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sachidananda Sahoo,
Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Tarun Kanta Pattanayak
Advocate
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Date of Hearing : 24.03.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 24.03.2025
J UDGMENT
Assailing the legality of Order No.MCL/PD/IR/Court
Case/2014/1358, dated 22.08.2014 (Anneuxre-10)
passed by the General Manager (P&IR) of Mahanadi
Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-
opposite party No.2, rejecting the representation
purported to be disposed of in compliance of Order dated
21.02.2014 passed in W.P.(C) No.24660 of 2013 by this
Court for rectification of date of birth as "29.06.1977"
instead of "28.02.1971", the petitioner has approached
this Court by way of filing this writ petition craving to
invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under
Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India with the
following prayer(s):
"The petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon‟ble Court
may graciously be pleaded to admit the writ application,
issue rule nisi to the opposite parties to show cause as to:
(i) The order bearing Ref No.MCL/PD/IR/Court
Case/2014/1358, Dt.22/8/2014, vide Annexure-10
shall not be set aside.
And
(ii) Why the opposite parties shall not be directed to
make necessary correction in the service records of
the petitioner by mentioning correct date of birth i.e.
29.06.1977 for all purpose within stipulated period.
And if the Opp. Parties do not show cause or show
insufficient cause, then rule be made absolutely by
issuing appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions and
any other order/orders as deemed fit and proper may be
passed.
And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty
bound ever pray."
Facts:
2. Shorn off unnecessary detailed narration, suffice it to
refer to relevant factual matrix as outlined in the
pleadings.
2.1. The petitioner, entered into service as Mazdoor Category-
1 on 16.11.1999, was issued with medical card by the
Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (be referred to as "MCL")
recording the date of birth as "29.06.1977".
2.2. The petitioner in the year 2001 was transferred from
Central Workshop (EXCV) to Kalinga Area. While
transmitting the Last Pay Certificate (LPC), the Deputy
Personnel Manager, CWS (X), Talcher mentioned the
date of birth as "31.02.1971" in Letter
No.GM/CWS(X)/Tal/Bill/LPC/2001/2868, dated
29.10.2001. On subsequent transfer from Kalinga Area
to Jagannath Area in the year 2011, while transmitting
the LPC vide Letter bearing Reference No. PO (BLR OCP)
LPC/11/7882, dated 22.12.2011, the date of birth of the
petitioner was mentioned as "03.03.1971".
2.3. It is claimed by the petitioner that the Register of
Employees maintained in Form-B prescribed under
Rules 48(3), 51, 77 and 77-A(2) of the Mines Rules, 1955
(hereinafter referred to "Form-B") recorded correctly the
date of birth as "29.06.1977".
2.4. On detection of discrepancy, the petitioner approached
the General Manager, Jagannath Area, Mahanadi
Coalfields Limited-opposite party No.5 on 02.02.2012
requesting for effecting necessary correction in his
service record. Since no step was taken by the opposite
party No.5 to rectify such mistake or resolve the
discrepancy in this service record with regard to the date
of birth, a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.12708 of
2012 was filed, which came to be disposed of vide Order
dated 07.01.2013, wherein it was directed that the
General Manager, Jagannath Area, Talcher is required to
look into the grievance of the petitioner and to take a
decision by verifying records.
2.5. In connection thereto, the Manager (P), Ananta OCP on
05.04.2013 submitted a Report before the Area
Personnel Manager, Jagannath Area for taking further
needful action in this matter. The Area Personnel
Manager, Jagannath Area vide his Letter
No.GM(JA)/Legal/2013/263-265, dated 15.06.2013
requested General Manager (Min)/Project Officer, Ananta
OCP for communication of decision. Vide Letter No.PO
(Ananta OCP)/Court Case/13/4249, dated 20.06.2013,
the decision of the General Manager (P&IR), MCL was
communicated, which contained the following:
"The decision of the Area Medical Board in determining
the date of birth of Sri Satnam Singh is 27½ years as on
31.08.1998 (Date of birth 28.02.1971) holds correct, just
and in accordance with company policy and directives."
2.6. Challenging such decision vide Communication dated
20.06.2013, the petitioner invoked extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court by way of filing writ petition,
i.e., W.P.(C) No.24660 of 2013, which came to be
disposed of vide Order dated 21.02.2014 with the
following observation:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner,
who is working as Dumber Operator, Excv. Cat-B,
Ananta Open Cast Project of Mahanadi Coalfields
Ltd., Dera in the district of Angul challenging the
order dated 20.06.2013 under Annexure-9 passed
by the General Manager (Min)-opposite party No.7
rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for correction of
date of birth in the service records.
3. On perusal of records, it appears that the petitioner
had entered into service in Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.
as Mazdoor Category-1 on 16.11.1999. The date of
birth of the petitioner mentioned in the Identity Card
under Annexure-1 issued by opposite party No.3 is
29.06.1977. Thereafter the petitioner was
transferred from Central Workshop (EXCV) to
Kalinga Area in the year, 2001. The Dy, Personal
Manager, CWS (X), Talcher of Mahandi Coalfields
Limited while transmitting the Last Pay Certificate
(LPC) of the petitioner has wrongly mentioned the
date of birth of the petitioner as 31.02.1971 under
Annexure-2. The petitioner was transferred from
Kalinga Area to Jagannath Area in the year 2011.
opposite party No.3 while transmitting the LPC of the
petitioner has again wrongly mentioned the date of
birth of the petitioner as 03.03.1971 under
Annexure-3. The Personnel Manager, Balaram OCP
while maintaining the register to Employees in Form-
B under Annexure-4 has rightly mentioned the date
of birth of the petitioner as 29.06.1977 which is
tallying with the Identity Card issued in favour of
the petitioner under Annexure-1. When the above
discrepancy came to the knowledge of the petitioner,
he filed a representation before opposite party No.5
on 02.02.2012 under Annexure-5 requesting him to
correct his date of birth in the service records as
29.06.1977. As no action was taken, the petitioner
approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.12708 of 2012
which was disposed of vide order dated 07.01.2013
directing the General Manager, Jagannath Area,
Talcher to look into the grievance of the petitioner
and to take a decision thereon by verifying the
records within a period of three months from the
date of production of certified copy of the order. In
pursuance of the aforesaid order, opposite party
No.7 by the impugned order dated 20.06.2013
under Annexure-9 intimated the petitioner that the
case of the petitioner has been examined by the
Management of Mahanadi Coalfields Limited in the
light of records available and the following decision
has been taken:
„The decision of the Area Medical Board in
determining the date of birth of Sri Satnam Singh is
27½ years as on 31.08.1998 (Date of Birth
28.02.1971) holds correct, just and in accordance
with Company Policy and directives.‟
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that at the time of entry into service the
petitioner has produced the Transfer Certificate
issued by the Head Master, Handidhua High Court,
Dhenkanal Circle under Annexure-7 which reflects
his date of birth is 29.06.1977. He further submitted
that Clause-A(ii) of Implementation Instruction No.76
with regard to the procedure for determination/
verification of age of employees stipulates that in the
case of appointees who have pursued studies in a
recognized educational institution, the date of birth
recorded in the School Leaving Certificate, shall be
treated as correct date of birth and the same will not
be altered under any circumstances. It is stated that
the said Clause is applicable to the petitioner as he
has submitted the Transfer Certificate from a
recognized High School in support of his date of birth
as the petitioner is a non-matric but educated.
However, the opposite parties have considered the
case of the petitioner under Clause-A(iv) of
Implementation Instruction No.76 which is applicable
to illiterate workmen and passed the impugned
order dated 20.06.2013.
5. After disposal of W.P.(C) No.12708 of 2012 an
enquiry was conducted by the Manager (P), Ananta
Opencast Project and he has submitted his report on
05.04.2013 under Annexure-8. From the said
enquiry report it reveals that in the service
sheet the educational qualification of the
petitioner is entered as Class-IX passed. One
copy of his Transfer Certificate No.0224505
dated 06.08.1993 issued by Headmaster,
Handidhua High School, Talcher is also
attached in his service sheet, in which his date
of birth is mentioned as 29.06.1977. The Opp.
Parties had sent a letter to the concerned school for
verification of the Transfer Certificate and in reply
the Headmaster, Handidhua High School vide letter
No.123 dated 26.03.2013 confirmed that the
Transfer Certificate is genuine and as per the
records of the School, the date of birth of the
petitioner is 29.06.1977. However, the said enquiry
report has not been considered by the Opposite
Parties while passing the impugned order dated
20.06.2013 under Annexure-9.
6. In view of the above and considering the fact that
there are discrepancies with regard to date of birth
of the petitioner in the service records maintained by
Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. at different mining areas,
this Court while quashing the impugned order dated
20.06.2013 under Annexure-9 passed by the
General Manager (Min)-opposite party No.7, as the
said opposite party has not taken into consideration
the materials available on records and not followed
the procedure for determination/verification of age of
the employees as stated in the above paragraphs,
direct opposite party No.2 to determine the date of
birth of the petitioner in view of Clause-B and C of
Implementation Instruction No.76 regarding
procedure for determination/verification of age of
employees, as expeditiously as possible, preferably
within a period of two months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
This writ petition is accordingly disposed of."
2.7. In pursuance thereof, the General Manager (P&IR) has
passed an Order vide Ref. No.MCL/PD/IR/Court Case/
2014/1358, dated 22.08.2014 under Anneuxre-10,
which is reproduced hereunder:
"Whereas Sri Satnam Singh s/o Sri Chandan @ Chanan
Singh, U. Man No.77113637, Dumper Operator,
Excavation Gr-B, Ananta OCP, Jagannath Area, Qr No.MQ
84, At/Po: Deulbera Colliery, Talcher, Dist: Angul
(hereinafter referred to as petitioner) has filed a writ
petition before the Hon‟ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack,
W.P.(C) No.24660 of 2013, wherein he has impleaded
Mahanadi Coal field Ltd. represented through its
Chairman-cum-Managing Director (hereinafter referred to
as opposite party No.1), General Manager (P&IR),
Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as
opposite party No.2), General Manager, Central Workshop
(Excv), Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. (hereinafter referred to
as opposite party No.3), General Manager (Mining),
Balaram OCP, Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd.(hereinafter
referred to as opposite party No.4), General Manager,
Jagannath Area, Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to as opposite party No.5), Area personnel
Manager, Jagannath Area, Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd.
(hereinafter referred to as opposite party No.6) among
others as party and wherein he has challenged the order
passed by Project Officer, Ananta OCP, MCL (hereinafter
referred to as opposite party No.7) in pursuance to Order
dated 07.01.2013 passed by Hon‟ble High Court of
Orissa in W.P.(C) No.12708 of 2012.
And whereas the Hon‟ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
while disposing off the writ petition No.24660 of 2013 in
its order dated 21.02.2014 has held that as there are
discrepancy with regard to date of birth of the
petitioner in service records maintained by
Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. at different Mining area
quashed the impugned order dated 20.06.2013
passed by opposite party No.7, as the said opposite
party has not considered the material available on
records and not followed the procedures
determination/verification of age and directed the
opposite party No.2 to determine the date of birth of
the petitioner in view of Clause B & C of
implementation instruction No.76 regarding
procedure for determination/ verification of age of
employees, as expeditiously as possible, preferably
within a period of two months from the date of
production of certified copy of the order.
And whereas after going through the available records,
and Clause B&C of Implementation instruction No.76 and
letter No.MCL/GM(P)/35/98/347 dated 26 and
28.05.1998 of the then General Manager (P/IR), MCL
addressed to all CGMs/GMs of Areas (copy enclosed as
Annexure-1), prescribing the determination of age at the
time of initial appointment which states,
Quote:
"It has been found that Transfer Certificate which has
been issued by the schools in respect of the studies below
Board level are being accepted for the purpose of date of
birth/age at the time of initial appointment under NCWA,
land losers employment scheme, etc. It has also been
found that such certificates are being submitted by the
candidate concerned from the schools which are not
recognized.
In order to maintain uniformity and also keeping in view
the provisions of I.I. No.76 of NCWA III, it has been
decided that the age recorded in the matriculation
certificate may only be accepted and entered in the
service sheet at the time of initial appointment. In all other
cases, i.e. below matriculates/literate/illiterate etc. the
age as assessed by area medical board at the time of
conducting initial medical examination, should only be
accepted".
Unquote
The petitioner being a non-matriculate and
appointed on 16.11.1999 that is after issue of the
above referred circular, the date of birth of the
petitioner should have been the age as assessed by
the Area Medical Board at the time of conducting
Initial Medical Examination.
And whereas the age assessed by the Area Medical
Board at the time of Initial Medical Examination in respect
of the petitioner is 27 and ½ years as on 31.08.1998
(copy enclosed as Annexure-II), and the same has been
accepted by the petitioner by putting his signature as well
as LTI on body of IME report, the date of birth of the
petitioner is determined to be 28.02.1971, for all practical
purposes.
And whereas the petitioner has relied upon Transfer
certificate No.0224505, dated 06.08.1993 issued by
Headmaster, Handidhua High School, the same is not
taken into cognigence as neither the Clause B & C of
I.I. No.76, does specifically mention about the date
of birth to be considered as per transfer certificate
nor does the letter No.MCL/GM(P)/35/98/347 dated 26 &
28.05.1998 of the then General Manager (P & IR), MCL
addressed to all CGMs/GMs of Areas.
The representation of the petitioner is accordingly
disposed of in compliance to the Order No.2, dated
21.02.2014 of Hon‟ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack in
W.P.(C) No.24660 of 2013."
2.8. Dissatisfied thereby, the petitioner has knocked the
doors of this Court for the third occasion seeking to
invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India.
Counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Parties:
3. In response to the notice issued by this Court vide Order
dated 03.11.2014, counter affidavit has been filed by the
opposite parties contending that the date of birth
mentioned in Form-B as "29.06.1977" is erroneous entry
and the entry in the LPC with date of birth as
03.03.1971 is also erroneous. It is asserted as follows:
"***
12. That, in reply to the averments made in para-9 and
10 of the writ petition, this deponent respectfully
submits that a perusal of the Implementation
Instruction No.76 dated 25.04.1998 would go to
show that if any discrepancy arises it will be
decided terms the Implementation Instruction No.76,
Clause B & C of Implementation Instruction No.76
and letter No.MCL/GM(P)/35/95/347 dated 26 &
28.05.1998 of the then General Manager (P/IR), MCL
addressed to all CGMs/GMs of Area prescribing the
determination of age at the time of initial
appointment which states as follows:
„It has been found that Transfer Certificate which
has been issued by the schools in respect of the
studies below Board of Level are being accepted for
the purpose of date of birth/age at the time of initial
appointment under NCWA, land losers employment
scheme, etc. It has also been found that such
certificates are being submitted by the candidate
concerned from the schools which are not
recognized.
In order to maintain uniformity and also keeping in
view the provisions of Implementation Instruction
No.76 of NCWA-III, it has been decided that the age
recognized in the Matriculation Certificate may only
be accepted and entered in the Service Sheet at the
time of initial appointment. In all other cases i.e.
below matriculate/literate/illiterate etc. the age as
assessed by Area medical Board at the time of
conducting Initial medical Examination, should only
be accepted.‟
In view of the above, the petitioner being a non-
matriculate and appointed on 16.11.1999 i.e., after
issue of the above referred circular, the date of birth
of the petitioner should have been age as assessed
by the Area medical Board at the time of conducting
Initial Medical Examination.
Furthermore, the age assessed by the Area Medical
Board at the time of Initial Medical Examination in
respect of the petitioner is 27 and ½ years as on
31.08.1998 (copy enclosed) and the same has been
accepted by the petitioner without any objection by
putting his signature as well as LTI on body of IME
report, the date of birth of the petitioner is
determined to be 28.02.1971 for all practical
purpose. Hence, the date of birth of the petitioner
has already mentioned in the service book as
28.02.1971 as per the age assessed during initial
medical examination and the petitioner has also
accepted the same without any objection since his
appointment.
***
18. That, with regard to the averments made in para-17
& 18 of the writ petition, this deponent respectfully
submits that after disposal of W.P.(C)
No.24660/2013, the opposite party No.2 has passed
the order dated 22.08.2014 under Annexure-10 in
terms of the order dated 21.02.2014 passed by this
Hon‟ble Court. A perusal of the order dated
22.08.2014 under Annexure-10 it would go to show
that the Opp. party No.2 after going through the
connected documents has passed the impugned
order dated 22.08.2014 under Annexure-1
considering the petitioner is a non-matriculate and
the age assessed by Area Medical Board at the time
of conducting initial medical examination is to be
accepted as date of birth of the employee/petitioner.
Further, the age assessed by the Area Medical
Board at the time of initial medical examination in
respect of the petitioner is 27 and ½ years as on
31.08.1998 and the same has been accepted by the
petitioner by putting his signature as well as LTI on
the body of the IME report, the date of birth of the
petitioner is determined to be 28.02.1971 for all
practical purposes. Moreover, though the employee
has possessed Transfer Certificate prior to date of
joining but not submitted the same at the time of
appointment as per Clause-A to Implementation
Instruction 76."
Hearing:
4. Pleadings, being completed and exchanged between the
learned counsel for respective parties, on their consent,
this matter is taken up for final hearing.
4.1. Accordingly, this Court heard Sri Sachidananda Sahoo,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri
Tarun Kanta Pattanayak, learned Counsel appearing for
the opposite parties.
Rival contentions and submissions:
5. Sri Sachidanda Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that Form-B-- Register of
Employees prescribed under the Mines Rules is
statutory one, wherein the date of entry and
commencement of employment have been correctly
reflected as "29.06.1977 and "16.11.1999" respectively.
As the petitioner is under-matriculate, by referring to
Implementation Instructions he placed heavy reliance on
the Transfer Certificate issued by the Head Master,
Handidhua High School, which depicts the date of birth
recorded in the Admission Register as "29.06.1977".
Demonstrating correctness of the fact, he has taken this
Court to the Report dated 05.04.2013 submitted by the
Manager (P), Ananta OCP, wherein it has been clearly
mentioned as follows:
"(xi) We had sent letter to the School for verification of his
Transfer Certificate and in reply of same, the
Headmaster, Handidhua High School vide his letter
No.123 dt.26.03.2013 confirmed that his Transfer
Certificate is genuine and as per records of the
School, the date of birth of Sri Singh is 29.06.1977."
5.1. He emphatically submitted that since the Transfer
Certificate has been affirmed by the Headmaster of the
Handidhua High School vide his Letter dated 26.03.2013
as genuine and as per records maintained in the School,
there could not have been any dispute or cloud of doubt
about the date of birth of the petitioner which ought to
have been taken as "29.06.1977".
5.2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stemming
on Clause-(A)(ii) of Annexure-I appended to
Implementation Instruction No.76 (No.CIL/NCWA-
III/I.I.No.76/88/145), dated 25.04.1988, urged that the
date of birth recorded in the Transfer Certificate has
sanctity and the entries in such certificate is to be
treated as correct. Since the petitioner has appeared in
Class IX examination, but failed, he falls within the
ambit of "non-matriculate but educated" as categorised
in the Implementation Instruction. Therefore, in terms of
Clause (B)(ii) of the said Implementation Instruction,
there is no scope for the MCL to reopen the issue and
having admitted to have erroneously recorded the date of
birth at the time of transmission of LPC on account of
transfer of the petitioner from one area to the other, the
MCL authority could not have stressed solely on the
suggestion of the Area Medical Board.
6. Strongly refuting the contentions of Sri Sachidananda
Sahoo, learned Advocate, Sri Tarun Kanta Pattanayak,
learned counsel appearing for the MCL-opposite parties
would submit that the disputed question as to the
correctness of "date of birth" is subject matter of civil
suit but not amenable to writ jurisdiction. However, he
proceeded to argue the matter on merit.
6.1. Referring to Annexure-A/6, i.e., copy of Service Book
enclosed to the counter affidavit, he submitted that the
number of Transfer Certificate Number, as found
reflected therein, does not tally with the number of the
Transfer Certificate which is furnished at Annexure-7 of
the writ petition.
6.2. Advancing his argument further he urged that the said
Service Book has mentioned the approximate age of the
petitioner as per the Medical Examination Report issued
by the CMO, Regional Hospital dated 09.11.1999. He,
thus, laid emphasis on Letter Reference No.
MCL/GM(P)/35/98/347, dated 26.05.1998 issued by
the General Manager (Personnel) addressed to the
CGM/GM of the areas, which is reproduced hereunder:
"Sub: Determination of age at the time of initial
appointment
Dear Sir,
It has been found that Transfer Certificate which
has been issued by the Schools in respect of the
studies below Board level are being accepted for the
purpose of date of birth/age at the time of initial
appointment under NCWA and losers employment
scheme, etc. It has also been found that such
certificates are being submitted by the candidate
concerned from the Schools which are not
recognised.
In order to maintain uniformity and also keeping in
view the provisions of I.I. No.76 of NCWA-III, it has
been decided that the age recorded in the
Matriculation certificate may only be accepted and
entered in the service at the time of initial
appointment. In all other cases, i.e., below
matriculates/literate/illiterate, etc., the age as
assessed by the Area Medical Board at the time of
conducting initial medical examination, should only
be accepted.
This issue with the approval of the competent
authority."
6.3. Therefore, he submitted that the age of the petitioner
has been assessed by the Area Medical Board at the time
of conducting initial medical examination has been
corrected and accepted as the petitioner has not passed
the matriculation examination.
Analysis and discussion:
7. At the outset it may be relevant to state that the reliance
placed by Sri Tarun Kanta Pattanayak, learned Advocate
on Letter Reference No. MCL/GM(P)/35/98/347, dated
26.05.1998 issued by the General Manager (Personnel)
addressed to the CGM/GM of the areas is not acceptable
inasmuch as the same is not in conformity with the
Implementation Instruction.
7.1. Scrutiny of copy of Transfer Certificate dated 06.08.1993
issued by the Headmaster of Handidhua High School as
enclosed to the writ petition at Annexure-7 depicts
following data:
"Folio No.105/93 TC No. 0224505
Date 06.08.1993
***
6. Date of birth as recorded
in the admission register
(in figure) : 29.06.77
(in words) : Twenty-ninth June
Seventy Seven
7. Date of school leaving 31.07.1993"
7.2. As it appears from Annexure-8 to the writ petition, the
Manager (P), Ananta OCP had submitted before APM,
Jagannath Area, along with copies of all relevant records
to examine the case of the petitioner and taking needful
action, wherein the following information is provided:
(xi) We had sent letter to the School for verification of his Transfer Certificate
and in reply of same, the Headmaster, Handidhua High School vide his
Letter No.123, dated 26.03.2013 confirmed that his Transfer
Certificate is genuine and as records of the school, the date of birth of Sri
Singh is 29.06.1977
***
So his date of birth in different records is summarized as below:
1. Approval letter for employment communicated 27½ years as per Area
by GM (A&R), MCL Medical Board on
31.08.1998
2. Initial Medical Examination Report 27½ years
(Approximate) as on
31.08.1998
3. Service Record 27½ years (Approx) as
on 31.08.1998 as per
the Medical Examination
Report issued by CMO
Regional Hospital,
Talcher on 09.11.1999
31.02.1971 in blue ball
pen
03.03.1971 in red ball
pen
4. LPC of OCS (X) Talcher 31.02.1971
5. Medical Card of CWS(X) Talcher 29.06.1977
6. LPC of Balaram OCP 03.03.1971
7. From „B‟ of Balaram OCP 29.06.1977
8. From „B‟ of Bhubaneswari OCP 29.06.1977
9. Transfer Certificates (Class-IX pass) 29.06.1977
10. PS-3 and PS-4 29.06.1977
7.3. Careful analysis of aforesaid Report would transpire that
data maintained in Form-B prescribed under the Mines
Rules, the Transfer Certificate issued by the Handidhua
School, PS-3 and PS-4 have unequivocally mentioned
the date of birth as "29.06.1977" and as per said Report,
the Headmaster of the Handidhua High School
confirmed that the Transfer Certificate is genuine. No
material is placed on the record by the opposite parties
to controvert such certificate and the entries recorded in
Form-B. Rather, at paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit,
it has been admitted by the opposite parties that
erroneous entry has been made mentioning the date of
birth as "31.02.1971" at the time of issue of LPC by the
Personnel Manager, CWS (Talcher), MCL. It has also
been conceded by the opposite parties at paragraph 9 of
said counter affidavit that in the year 2011 the authority
issued LPC when the petitioner was transferred
mentioning wrongly the date of birth as "03.03.1971".
7.4. Though Sri Tarun Kanta Pattanayak, learned Advocate
has referred to copy of Service Book (Annexure-A/6 to
the counter affidavit) to buttress his argument that since
the number of Transfer Certificate mentioned therein
does not match with the number of the Transfer
Certificate available at Annexure-7 to the writ petition,
which renders such evidence doubtful, on a query from
this Court during the course of hearing as to why he has
not corroborated such stance by placing copy of such
Transfer Certificate as reflected in the Service Book, he
could not substantiate his claim. Thus, the Transfer
Certificate at Annexure-7, which the Headmaster of
Handidhua High School confirmed as genuinely issued,
is to be accepted and the entries reflected therein, being
not successfully challenged by the opposite parties, is
treated to be correct depiction of factual position.
7.5. From the said Transfer Certificate it is manifest that the
petitioner is non-matriculate, but educated as he
studied up to Class IX. For determination of age at the
time of appointment, procedure has been laid down in
Annexure-I appended to Implementation Instruction
No.76 vide No.CIL/NCWA-III/I.I.No.76/88/145, dated
25.04.1988.
7.6. At this juncture, it is apposite to have reference to
relevant portion of Annexure-I appended to
Implementation Instruction No.76, dated 25.04.1988
which reads as hereunder:
"6. Procedure for determination/verification of the age of
employee:
The earlier Implementation Instruction No.37 dated
5th February, 1981 has been revised and the same
is enclosed as Annexure-I.
Annexure-I
(A) Determination of the age at the time of appointment:
i) Matriculates.
***
ii) Non-matriculates but educated.
In the case of appointees who have pursued
studies in a recognized educational institution,
the date of birth recorded in the School
Leaving Certificate, shall be treated as
correct date of birth and the same will not
be altered under any circumstances.
***
(B) Review determination of date of birth in respect of
existing employees.
i) (a) ***
i) (b) ***
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 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 register, CMPF
Records and Identity Cards (untampered) 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 the Management for determination of
age."
7.7. From the above Implementation Instructions it is
unambiguous that for non-matriculates but educated
appointees, like the petitioner, who pursued studies in a
recognized educational institution, viz., Handidhua High
School, the date of birth recorded in the School Leaving
Certificate is treated to be correct. The fact of date of
birth of the petitioner is "29.06.1977" is fortified by the
confirmation of the Headmaster of said High School by
issue of Letter No.123, dated 26.03.2013, on the request
of the MCL authorities. This remained unimpeached by
the opposite parties by laying cogent material.
7.8. Furthermore, Form-B maintained by the opposite parties
as required under the Mines Rules, 1955, being not
varied, in view of item (ii) of Clause (B) of Annexure-I of
the Implementation Instruction, there is no scope for
reopening issue. Under such premise, there was no
scope for accepting the approximate age assessed
through Medical Board. Question of determination of age
through Medical Board would arise only when the date
of birth is not ascertainable. The assertion of the
opposite parties that the Area Medical Board has
assessed the age of the petitioner as "27½ years
(Approximate) as on 31.08.1998" is to be accepted
cannot be acceded to inasmuch as the Medical Board
has not assessed the "date of birth", but approximate
age. Such approximation of age by the Area Medical
Board, in absence of any material to establish falsity of
the entries made in the Transfer Certificate/School
Leaving Certificate, cannot be taken cognizance of in
view of item (ii) of Clause (B) read with item (ii) of Clause
(A) of Annexure-I of the Implementation Instruction.
7.9. The expression "the same will not be altered under any
circumstances" employed in item (ii) of Clause (A) ibid.
leads to say that the opposite parties have misdirected
themselves by being swayed away by approximation of
age assessed by the Area Medical Board, particularly
when they have admitted that error has been
perpetuated while issuing LPC on the transfer of the
petitioner from one area to the other.
7.10. In view of aforesaid analysis, there is no occasion for the
opposite parties to rely on the Area Medical Board
Report for the purpose of determination of "date of
birth". It is pertinent to refer the Report dated
05.04.2013 submitted by the Manager (P), Ananta OCP
to APM, Jagannath Area, which reveals that the
Headmaster of Handidhua High School in his Letter
No.123, dated 26.03.2013 confirmed that "transfer
certificate is genuine and as per records of the School,
the date of birth of Sri Singh is 29.06.1977".
7.11. Emphasis may be laid on the following observation made
by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Michael
Nayak Vrs. State of Odisha, 2022 (III) ILR-CUT 657:
"7. As far as the documentary evidence is concerned,
the School Register showed the Appellant to be a
„Pana Hindu‟. In this context, it may be noted that in
Kumari Madhuri Patil Vrs. Additional Commissioner,
AIR 1995 SC 94, the Supreme Court observed as
under:
„The entries in the school register preceding the
Constitution do furnish great probative value to the
declaration of status of a caste. Hierarchical caste
stratification of Hindu social order has its reflection
in all entries in the public records. What would,
therefore, depict the caste status of the people
inclusive of the school or college records, as they
then census rules insisted upon.‟
8. There appears to be no credible evidence either oral
or documentary to show that the appellant was not
in fact a „Pana Hindu‟ but a „Pana Christian‟.
However, the impugned order of the SLSC
throughout proceeds on conjectures and surmises to
come to such conclusion."
7.12. In the case of Madan Mohan Singh Vrs. Rajni Kant,
(2010) 9 SCC 209 the following are the observations with
respect to probative value of document issued by School:
"17. In State of Bihar Vrs. Radha Krishna Singh, (1983) 3
SCC 118 this Court dealt with a similar contention
and held as under:
„40. *** Admissibility of a document is one thing
and its probative value quite another-- these
two aspects cannot be combined. A document
may be admissible and yet may not carry any
conviction and weight of its probative value
may be nil.
***
53. *** where a report is given by a responsible
officer, which is based on evidence of
witnesses and documents and has a statutory
flavour in that it is given not merely by an
administrative officer but under the authority of
a statute, its probative value would indeed be
very high so as to be entitled to great weight.
***
145.(4) The probative value of documents which,
however ancient they may be, do not disclose
sources of their information or have not
achieved sufficient notoriety is precious little.‟
18. Therefore, a document may be admissible, but as to
whether the entry contained therein has any
probative value may still be required to be examined
in the facts and circumstances of a particular case.
The aforesaid legal proposition stands fortified by
the judgments of this Court in Ram Prasad Sharma
Vrs. State of Bihar, (1969) 2 SCC 359 = AIR 1970 SC
326, Ram Murti Vrs. State of Haryana, (1970) 3 SCC
21 = AIR 1970 SC 1029, Dayaram Vrs.
Dawalatshah, (1971) 1 SCC 358 = AIR 1971 SC
681, Harpal Singh Vrs. State of H.P., (1981) 1 SCC
560 = AIR 1981 SC 361, Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vrs.
State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 584, Babloo Pasi Vrs.
State of Jharkhand, (2008) 13 SCC 133, Desh Raj
Vrs. Bodh Raj, (2008) 2 SCC 186 = AIR 2008 SC 632
and Ram Suresh Singh Vrs. Prabhat Singh, (2009) 6
SCC 681. In these cases, it has been held that even
if the entry was made in an official record by the
official concerned in the discharge of his official
duty, it may have weight but still may require
corroboration by the person on whose information
the entry has been made and as to whether the
entry so made has been exhibited and proved. The
standard of proof required herein is the same as in
other civil and criminal cases.
19. Such entries may be in any public document i.e.
school register, voters‟ list or family register
prepared under the Rules and Regulations, etc. in
force, and may be admissible under Section 35 of
the Evidence Act as held in Mohd. Ikram Hussain
Vrs. State of U.P., AIR 1964 SC 1625 and Santenu
Mitra Vrs. State of W.B., (1998) 5 SCC 697 = AIR
1999 SC 1587
20. So far as the entries made in the official record by
an official or person authorised in performance of
official duties are concerned, they may be
admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act but
the court has a right to examine their probative
value. The authenticity of the entries would depend
on whose information such entries stood recorded
and what was his source of information. The entries
in school register/school leaving certificate require to
be proved in accordance with law and the standard
of proof required in such cases remained the same
as in any other civil or criminal cases.
21 For determining the age of a person, the best
evidence is of his/her parents, if it is supported by
unimpeachable documents. In case the date of birth
depicted in the school register/certificate stands
belied by the unimpeachable evidence of reliable
persons and contemporaneous documents like the
date of birth register of the Municipal Corporation,
government hospital/nursing home, etc., the entry in
the school register is to be discarded. (Vide Brij
Mohan Singh Vrs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha, AIR
1965 SC 282, Birad Mal Singhvi Vrs. Anand Purohit,
1988 Supp SCC 604 = AIR 1988 SC 1796, Vishnu
Vrs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 1 SCC 283 and
Satpal Singh Vrs. State of Haryana, (2010) 8 SCC
714.)
22. If a person wants to rely on a particular date of birth
and wants to press a document in service, he has to
prove its authenticity in terms of Section 32(5) or
Sections 50, 51, 59, 60 and 61, etc. of the Evidence
Act by examining the person having special means
of knowledge, authenticity of date, time, etc.
mentioned therein. (Vide Updesh Kumar Vrs. Prithvi
Singh, (2001) 2 SCC 524 and State of Punjab Vrs.
Mohinder Singh, (2005) 3 SCC 702 = AIR 2005 SC
1868.)"
7.13. In State of Punjab Vrs. Mohinder Singh, (2005) 3 SCC 702
it has been held,
"10. In terms of Section 32 clause (5) of the Evidence Act,
1872 (in short "the Evidence Act"), the evidentiary
value of a horoscope has to be considered. No
evidence was led by the respondent to prove
authenticity of the same. In any event the same
was not to be given primacy over the school
leaving certificate. It was not shown as to how
the entry therein was wrong. The onus was on
the respondent to prove that the same was not
correct, which was not discharged. Two
photostat copies of the school leaving certificate were
produced before the enquiry officer. He compared
them and found that even to the naked eye change
of figure "31" to "34" was visible. Interestingly in the
said copies the date of birth was indicated even
after the change to be 25.11.1934 and not
01.10.1934 as claimed.
11. Horoscope is a very weak piece of material to prove
age of a person. In most cases, the maker of it may
not be available to prove that it was made
immediately after the birth. A heavy onus lies on the
person who wants to press it into service to prove its
authenticity. In fact, a horoscope to be treated as
evidence in terms of Section 32 clause (5) must be
proved to have been made by a person having
special means of knowledge as regards authenticity
of a date, time, etc. mentioned therein. In that
context horoscopes have been held to be
inadmissible in proof of age. (See Ramnarain Kallia
Vrs. Monee Bibee, ILR (1883) 9 Cal 613, Biro Vrs.
Atma Ram, AIR 1937 PC 101 = 1937 All LJ 462 and
Satish Chandra Mukhopadhya Vrs. Mohendra Lal
Pathak, ILR 97 Cal 849.)
***
13. As observed by this Court in Umesh Chandra Vrs.
State of Rajasthan, (1982) 2 SCC 202 ordinarily oral
evidence can hardly be useful to determine the
correct age of a person, and the question, therefore,
would largely depend on the documents and the
nature of their authenticity. Oral evidence may have
utility if no documentary evidence is forthcoming.
Even the horoscope cannot be reliable because it can
be prepared at any time to suit the needs of a
particular situation. Entries in the school register
and admission form regarding date of birth
constitute good proof of age. There is no legal
requirement that the public or other official book
should be kept only by a public officer and all that is
required under Section 35 of the Evidence Act is that
it should be regularly kept in discharge of official
duty. In the instant case the entries in the school
register were made ante litem motam.
14. Therefore, the school records have more probative
value than a horoscope. Where no other material is
available, the horoscope may be considered but
subject to its authenticity being established. These
aspects were not considered by the first appellate
court and the High Court."
7.14. The opposite parties have not put forth on record any
tangible material to disbelieve the authenticity of entries
made in the Transfer Certificate, which is confirmed by
the Headmaster of Handidhua High School to have been
issued genuinely. Such information was supplied by the
Headmaster at the request of the MCL.
7.15. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is required to be
acceded to.
8. Register of Employees in Form-B prescribed in the Mines
Rules, 1955, maintained by the MCL depicts the date of
birth as "29.06.1977" with the date of commencement of
the employment as "16.11.1999". As has already
observed, from aforesaid Implementation Instruction
read with Form-B does not indicate occasion for the
opposite parties to go for determination of age by the
Area Medical Board, which has assessed the age on
approximation. In absence of strong corroborative
evidence brought on record by the opposite parties, the
entries in the Form B and the Transfer Certificate cannot
be said to be erroneous and cannot be discarded lightly.
8.1. Reading of the counter affidavit of the opposite parties, it
is manifest that MCL has erroneously recorded the date
of birth in LPC at the time of transfer of the petitioner
from one area to the other. There could be no dispute set
up by the opposite parties with regard to entries made in
Form-B-- Register of Employees in the face of such
admission in the counter affidavit.
8.2. With such factual background, this leads to irresistible
conclusion that erroneous recording in the LPC does not
confer any authority on the MCL to accept the
approximate age as suggested by the Area Medical
Board. The Order dated 22.08.2014 passed by the
General Manager (P&IR) is not in conformity with the
provisions laid down in Clause B(ii) read with Clause
A(ii) of Annexure-I appended to Implementation
Instruction No.76, and, hence, this Court is inclined to
interfere with said order.
8.3. With respect to the probative value of Transfer
Certificate and the sanctity of Form-B-- Register of
Employees prescribed under the Mines Rules, 1955, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had the occasion to deal
with the same in Bharat Cooking Coal Limited and others
Vrs. Chhota Birsa Uranw, (2014) 12 SCC 570, wherein
the following observations were made:
"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. Vrs. R. Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp (1)
SCC 155, which is as under:
„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 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.‟
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.
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 Vrs. U.P. Power Corpn.
Ltd., (2009) 1 SCC 80, that:
„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.
11. Admittedly, the appellant as the employer in view of
its own regulations being Implementation Instruction
76 contained in National Coal Wage Agreement III,
gave all its employees a chance to identify and
rectify the discrepancies in the service records by
providing them a nominee form containing details of
their service records. This initiative of the appellants
clearly indicated the existence of errors in service
records of which the appellants were aware and
were taking steps to rectify the same. Against this
backdrop, the stance of the appellant that the
records in the Form-B register must be relied upon
does not hold good as it is admitted by the appellant
that errors existed in the same. Even a perusal of
the nominee form exhibits the ambiguity regarding
the date of birth and date of joining. It was due to
the discrepancies which subsisted that the
appellants gave all its employees a chance to rectify
the same. In such circumstances, the appellants are
bound by their actions and their attempt to deny the
claims of the respondent is incorrect. The respondent
in this case duly followed the procedure available
and the attempt of the appellant to deny the claim of
the respondent on the basis of technicality is
incorrect. We, therefore, feel that the learned Single
Judge has correctly held that: (Chhota Birsa Uranw
Vrs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., (2010) 2 AIR Jhar R
410, AIR Jhar R p. 413, para 11)
„11. Having given the petitioner, like all other
employees, the benefit of seeking correction of
the entries contained in their respective service
records including their date of birth, the
petitioner's claim cannot be denied, merely
because he had signed upon the Form B
register at the time of its opening and
containing the entry of date of birth as
recorded therein.‟
12. The appellant in the present case should have
followed the procedure as laid down by
Implementation Instruction 76 to determine the date
of birth of an existing employee. The provisions of
which read as follows:
***
13. In another case, being Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vrs.
Shib Kumar Dushad, (2000) 8 SCC 696 where the
date of birth of an employee of Bharat Coking Coal
was in dispute and the same set of instructions
were applicable, this Court referring to the
implementation instruction held that:
„20. From the provisions in the instructions referred
to above, it is clear that in case of dispute over
the date of birth of an existing employee who
has neither a Matriculation Certificate/
Secondary School Certificate nor a statutory
certificate in which the Manager has certified
the entry regarding the date of birth to be
authentic the employer is to refer the matter to
the Medical Board.‟
14. We give due regard to the sensitive nature of date of
birth disputes and fully agree with the approach laid
down in Home Deptt. Vrs. R. Kirubakaran, 1994
Supp (1) SCC 155. 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.
15. As noted by us, the respondent in 1987 on coming to
know of the wrong recording of his date of birth in
his service records from the nomination form sought
rectification. Therefore, such rectification was not
sought at the fag end of his service. We have further
noticed that the High Court duly verified the
genuineness of the school leaving certificate on the
basis of a supplementary affidavit filed by Shri Dilip
Kumar Mishra, Legal Inspector of the appellant
Company on 6-9-2010 before the High Court. It has
been admitted in the said supplementary
affidavit that the school leaving certificate has
been verified and has been found to be genuine.
We have further noticed that Implementation
Instruction 76 Clause (i)(a) permits rectification
of the date of birth by treating the date of birth
mentioned in the school leaving certificate to
be correct provided such certificates were
issued by the educational institution prior to
the date of employment. The question of
interpreting the words "were issued" was correctly
interpreted, in our opinion, by the High Court which
interpreted the said words for the purpose of
safeguarding against misuse of the certificates for
the purpose of increasing the period of employment.
The High Court correctly interpreted and
meant that these words will not apply where
the school records containing the date of birth
were available long before the starting of the
employment. The date of issue of certificate
actually intends to refer to the date with the
relevant record in the school on the basis of
which the certificate has been issued. A school
leaving certificate is usually issued at the time
of leaving the school by the student,
subsequently a copy thereof also can be
obtained where a student misplaces his said
school leaving certificate and applies for a
fresh copy thereof. The issuance of fresh copy
cannot change the relevant record which is
prevailing in the records of the school from the
date of the admission and birth date of the
student, duly entered in the records of the
school."
8.4. Meena Kumari @ Meena Kumari Rout Vrs. State of Odisha
and others, 2023 (III) ILR-CUT 1115, has been relied on
by Sri Sachidananda Sahoo, learned Advocate for the
petitioner, wherein the following observations of this
Court are noteworthy:
"9. In this aspect, a Government servant, after entry into
service, acquires the right to continue in service till
the age of retirement, as fixed by the State, in
exercise of its powers regulating conditions of
service, unless the services are dispersed with on
other grounds contained in the relevant service rules
after following the procedure prescribed therein. The
date of birth entered in the service records of a civil
servant is, thus of utmost importance for the reason
that right to continue in service stands decided by its
entry in the service record. A Government servant
who has declared his age at the initial stage of the
employment is, of course, not precluded from making
a request later on for correcting his age.
10. It is open to a civil servant to claim correction of his
date of birth, if he is in possession of the irrefutable
proof relating to his date of birth as different from
the one earlier recorded and even if there is no
period of limitation prescribed for seeking correction
of date of birth, the Government servant must do so
without any unreasonable delay. In the absence of
any provision in the rules for correction of date of
birth, the general principle of refusing relief on the
grounds of latches or stale claims, is generally
applied to by the courts and tribunals. It is,
nonetheless, competent for the Government to fix a
time limit, in the service rules, after which no
application for correction of date of birth of a
Government servant can be entertained.
11. A Government servant who makes an application for
correction of date of birth beyond the time, so fixed,
therefore, cannot claim, as a matter of right, the
correction of his date of birth even if he has good
evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth
is clearly erroneous. The law of limitation may
operate harshly but it has to be applied with all its
rigour and the courts or tribunals cannot come to the
aid of those who sleep over their rights and allow
the period of limitation to expire. Unless altered, his
date of birth as recorded would determine his date
of superannuation even if it amounts to abridging his
right to continue in service on the basis of his actual
age. Indeed, as held by the Apex Court in State of
Assam & Anr. Vrs. Daksha Prasad Deka & Ors,
(1971) 2 SCR 687, a public servant may dispute the
date of birth as entered in the service record and
apply for its correction but till the record is corrected
he cannot claim to continue in service on the basis of
the date of birth claimed by him. In the present case,
even if the petitioner has approached several times
to the authority, the said authority has given deaf
ear to such representation."
8.5. It is undisputed fact that the Transfer Certificate was
issued prior to taking up employment by the petitioner
and the genuineness of its issue has been confirmed by
the issuing authority. The first objection of the opposite
parties that the disputed fact with respect to date of
birth cannot be entertained in the writ jurisdiction is
repelled inasmuch as there being clear case on the basis
of materials which is relied on by the petitioner read
with relevant procedure laid down in Implementation
Instructions. The entry in Transfer Certificate being not
successfully controverted by the opposite parties by
leading cogent evidence, the same can be held to be
conclusive in nature and this Court in view of legal
position enunciated in Bharat Cooking Coal Limited and
others Vrs. Chhota Birsa Uranw, (2014) 12 SCC 570
considers the materials which formed the basis for the
petitioner to claim correction of date of birth as
plausible.
8.6. In the case of Ranjeet Goswami Vrs. State of Jharkhand,
(2013) 9 SCR 497, it has been clearly laid down as
follows:
"9. We are of the view that no cogent reasons have been
stated by the High court to discard the school
leaving certificate which was issued on 10.04.2004
by the then Principal of the school. The certificate
reveals the date of birth of the accused as
10.05.1991. The school leaving certificate was
proved by examining the head mistress of the
school. She has recognized the signatures of the
principal who issued the school leaving certificate.
The evidence adduced by the head mistress
was not challenged. Consequently, there is no
reason to discard that document. Further, we notice
that there was some confusion as to whether the
appellant, whose name is Ranjeet Goswami is the
same person Rajiv Ranjan Goswami. The
investigating officer‟s report indicates that they are
different persons. Consequently we have to take it
that the school leaving certificate produced was in
respect of the appellant which has been proved.
10. We, therefore, find no reason to reject the school
leaving certificate. If that be so, as per the ratio laid
down in Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vrs. State of M.P.,
(2012) 9 SCC 750 there is no question of subjecting
the accused to a medical examination by a medical
board."
8.7. In view of aforesaid delineated legal perspective with
respect to sanctity of Transfer Certificate/School Leaving
Certificate and Form-B-- Register of Employees
maintained by the MCL under the Mines Rules, 1955,
and in absence of any contrary material placed by the
opposite parties to disbelieve the veracity of such
document (especially when the opposite party has
admitted to have mistaken in recording the date of birth
while transmitting LPC on transfer of the petitioner), this
Court taking into account the entry as regards date of
birth reflected in Medical Examination Card, Form-B
maintained under the Mines Rules, Transfer Certificate
issued by the Headmaster of Handidhua High School
and Clause A(ii) and B(ii) of Annexure-I appended to the
Implementation Instruction No.76, is of the considered
opinion that the impugned Order dated 22.08.2024
passed by the General Manager (P&IR) (Annexure-10)
does warrant intervention.
Conclusion:
9. On the factual matrix along with the discussion made
supra and analysis of provisions contained in the
Implementation Instructions, for the reasons ascribed to
in foregoing paragraphs supported by conspectus of
decisions of Courts as referred to and relied on, the
finding returned by the General Manager (P&IR), that
"the petitioner being a non-matriculate and appointed on
16.11.1999 that is after issue of the above referred
circular, the date of birth of the petitioner should have
been the age as assessed by the Area Medical Board at
the time of conducting initial Medical Examination"
cannot be countenanced in law.
9.1. The finding recorded in said impugned order that "the
petitioner has relied upon Transfer Certificate
No.0224505, dated 06.08.1993 issued by Headmaster,
Handidhua High School, the same is not taken into
cognigence as neither the Clause B and C of I.I. No.76,
does specifically mention about the date of birth to be
considered as per Transfer Certificate nor does the letter
No.MCL/GM(P)/35/98/347 dated 26 and 28.05.1998 of
the then General Manager (P&IR), MCL addressed to all
CGMs/GMs of Areas" runs counter to what has been
spelt out in the Implementation Instructions as
discussed in foregoing paragraphs.
10. Hence, the Order dated 22.08.2014 passed by the
General Manager (P&IR), MCL, being not tenable in the
eye of law, is liable to be set aside and, this Court,
hence, does so.
10.1. Having set aside the said Order in Annexure-10, it is apt
to direct that the opposite parties shall carry out
necessary changes in the Service Book of the petitioner
taking into consideration the date of birth as
"29.06.1977" within a period of eight weeks from date.
10.2. Needless to observe that all consequential service and
financial benefit shall be extended to the petitioner as is
entitled and admissible in law.
11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, but in the
circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.
(MURAHARI SRI RAMAN)
JUDGE
Signed by: LAXMIKANT High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
MOHAPATRA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
The 24h March, 2025//Laxmikant
Location: High Court of Orissa,
Cuttack
