The Singareni Collieries Co. ... vs Thota Gangaiah
2021 Latest Caselaw 3767 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                   AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY



                       I.A.No.1 of 2019
                            in/and
                 WRIT APPEAL No.675 of 2019

JUDGMENT:   (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


     The present writ appeal has been filed with a delay

of 295 days in filing the writ appeal. I.A.No.1 of 2019 is

filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

     The reasons assigned in the application seeking

condonation of delay are administrative reasons and day

to day delay has not been explained.                       Therefore, this

Court does not find any reason to condone the delay.

     However, on merits also, the facts of the case reveal

that the respondent herein was appointed on 07.08.1982

and he was having a Secondary School Certificate to his

credit issued on 20.07.1970 in which the date of birth

was recorded as 16.06.1953. He was appointed as a

Grade-D employee and at the relevant point of time, no

educational qualifications were prescribed for the post in

question on which he was appointed and therefore, he

did not submit his Secondary School Certificate to the

employer. The employer, based upon some medical

examination and Doctor's report, recorded his age as 32

years as on 24.06.1982 and consequentially issued a

retirement notice on 03.02.2009 to the effect that he

would be retiring from service on 30.06.2010. The

employee has thereafter preferred the writ petition

claiming his continuation based upon the Secondary

School Certificate and an interim order was granted by

the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has

finally allowed the writ petition and the relevant portion

of the order passed by the learned Single Judge reads as

under:-

"This Court, having considered the rival submissions, is of the considered view that the petitioner was allowed to work upto 30.06.2013 and the counsel appearing for petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Page No.29 of the material papers filed alongwith counter, wherein Implementation of Instruction No.76 proceedings for age determination/ verification of age of employee guidelines are there and as per the said guidelines, review/determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees, should be as follows :-

"(a) In the case of existing employees Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the recognized Universities or Board or Middle Pass Certificate issued by the Board of Education and/or Department of Public Instruction and admit cards issued by the aforesaid Bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said Universities/Boards/institutions prior to the date of employment.

(b) Similarly, Mining Sirdarship, Winding Engine or similar other statutory certificate where the Manager had to certify the date of birth will be treated as authentic. Provided that where both documents mentioned in (i)

(a) and (i) (b) above are available, the date of birth recorded in (i) (a) will be treated as authentic."

A perusal of the said guidelines would indicate that existing employees, who have passed Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the recognized Universities or Board or Middle Pass Certificate issued by the Board of Education and/or Department of Public Instruction and admit cards issued by the aforesaid Bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said Universities/Boards/ Institutions prior to the date of employment.

Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner has passed S.S.C. and he was issued SSC Certificate on 20.07.1970, which was issued prior to the appointment of petitioner with the respondents and the said Certificate discloses that the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 16.06.1953. Apart from that, even Shot-Firer's Certificate dated 26.02.1988 and Sirdar's Certificate dated 30.08.1991 would clearly indicate the date of birth of the petitioner as 16.06.1953.

In view of the said guidelines, the petitioner is entitled to be continued in service upto 30.06.2013, as his date of birth was recorded as 16.06.1953 in SSC Certificate, Shot-Firer's Certificate dated 26.02.1988 and Sirdar's Certificate dated 30.08.1991.

Therefore, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned notice dated 03.02.2009. The respondents are directed to settle the terminal benefits of the petitioner by duly treating his service upto 30.06.2013, with all consequential benefits. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed."

Not only this, the employee has worked on account

of interim order up to 30.06.2013. In the considered

opinion of this Court, on merits also, no case is made out

for interference with the order passed by the learned

Single Judge keeping in view the guidelines relating to

the determination of date of birth which have already

been quoted above.

The I.A and the writ appeal are accordingly

dismissed. The miscellaneous applications pending in

this writ appeal, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be

no order as to costs.

___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

___________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 25.11.2021 vs