T.Satya Raju vs The Chairman And Managing ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 595 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD

              WRIT PETITION No.39325 of 2018
ORDER:

This writ petition is filed challenging the action of the

respondents in not changing the date of birth of the petitioner

in his service record as per the Medical certificate, dated

15.07.2014 issued by the Osmania General Hospital,

Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary and further direct the

respondents to pay the salary from 31.03.2017 till his legal

superannuation date along with other statutory benefits as

the petitioner is a deemed employee of the respondent

company.

2. Heard Sri Ch.Venkat Raman, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri J.Sreenivasa Rao, learned standing counsel

for Singareni Collieries - respondents 1 to 3.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined in the

service and worked as Tyndol in the 1st respondent company

at Goutham Khani, Kothagudem, Khammam District and his

brother is also working in the respondent company, who is

five years elder than him, but in the company records his age

is wrongly noted as 20.03.1957 instead of 03.07.1962. As per

the Transfer Certificate and other educational certificates, the

original date of birth of the petitioner is 03.07.1962. After

noticing the mistake of date of birth as 20.03.1957, the

petitioner made an application to the respondents for

correction of his date of birth in his service register. On

03.09.2013, the respondents directed the petitioner to appear

before the Age Determination Committee for determination of

his age and thereafter, they referred to the Superintendent,

Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad on 25.06.2014 to

assess the age of the petitioner through Forensic Medicine

Department. The said hospital authorities examined the

petitioner on 15.07.2014 and by letter dated 09.07.2014 they

informed that the age of the petitioner as on 15.07.2014 is 55

years. However, even after receiving the letter from the said

hospital, the respondents did not act upon. Therefore, the

petitioner made an application to the respondent company on

21.03.2017 to correct the date of birth in his service records

and he is going to retire on 30.07.2017. But the respondents

have not changed the date of birth in the service record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in

pursuance of his request made to the respondent company

they have considered and referred to the medical council and

that the medical council determined that as per the Professor

and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine opinion,

the age of the petitioner is 55 years as on 15.7.2014 and on

the strength of the same, learned counsel for the petitioner

contended that the petitioner is entitled for all the service

benefits.

5. Learned standing counsel for the respondent company

would submit that the petitioner has not submitted the date

of birth certificate or any proof of the same at the time of

joining in service and on the self declaration of the petitioner

and on the examination of the petitioner by the Age

Determination Team of Singareni Colleries, the age of the

petitioner was determined as 25 years and accordingly, he

was appointed on 28.04.1982 and his date of birth was noted

as 20.03.1957 ever since he was in service.

6. The learned standing counsel would further submit

that the respondent company also issued one year advance

notice and one month advance notice of retirement informing

the petitioner on 29.02.2016 and 28.02.2017, and the

petitioner has accepted the same.

7. For the reasons best known to the petitioner, on

14.02.2013, for the first time, he obtained transfer certificate

and study certificate from the private school indicating that

the date of birth of the petitioner is 03.07.1962 and on the

strength of the same, he approached the Medical Team of the

respondent company and the concerned medical officer

without having proper knowledge, inadvertently referred the

petitioner to the Age Determination Committee of Osmania

General Hospital, Hyderabad and that the doctors examined

the petitioner and issued certificate in favour of the petitioner

indicating that the age of the petitioner is 55 years.

8. As per the norms of the respondent company, the

Medical Team of the respondent company is not supposed to

refer the petitioner to Osmania General Hospital or to any

other hospital and that the mistake committed by the referral

doctor cannot be taken to the advantage of the petitioner.

Further the petitioner retired on 31.03.2017 and that he has

received all terminal benefits unconditionally.

9. Learned Standing Counsel has relied upon a judgment

rendered by this Court in Ram Brich Yadav (Died) as per

LRs. V. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Khammam

District & others1, wherein, this Court held that any attempt

to correct the date of birth in the fag-end of service is not

permissible and contends that for three Decades, the

petitioner has not raised any dispute with regard to his date

of birth and only when he was about to retire in 2 or 3 years,

the petitioner has sought correction of date of birth.

10. Learned standing counsel also relied on the judgment of

the Apex Court in State of Tamilnadu v T.V.Venugopalan2

wherein it was held that when the entry was made in the

service record and when the employee was in service he did

not make any attempt to have the service record corrected,

any amount of evidence produced subsequently is of no

consequence.

11. As seen from the record, admittedly, the petitioner

having claimed his date of birth as 03.07.1962 has never

chosen to contest the same till 2013 having joined in service

2018 (2) ALD 249

1994(6) SCC 302

on 28.04.1982. The conduct of the petitioner in seeking

correction of his date of birth from 20.03.1957 to 03.07.1962

after rendering service for over 30 years cannot be

appreciated. The petitioner has not challenged the one year

advance notice or one month advance notice of his retirement

issued by the respondent company informing about his

retirement. It appears to be the chance litigation by the

petitioner at the fag end of his service invoking Article 226 of

the Constitution of India with all infirmities.

12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case and in view of the submission of learned standing

counsel, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall

be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if

any, shall stand closed.

______________________ T.AMARNATH GOUD Date: 23.02.2021 Note: L.R. copy to be marked b/o kvrm