Telangana High Court
Salakula Rayalingu Died Per Lrs vs The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd on 10 January, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.39556 of 2012
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to call for the records from the Respondents and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of Certiorari declaring that the order passed by 3rd respondent in proceeding No.RG.I/Gdk.11/2012/WO/3348 Dt.05-10-2012 and RG.1/Gdk.11/WO/3872 Dt:21-11-2012 recording petitioner date of birth as 21-12-1952, instead of 14-02-1959 as illegal unjust contrary to law, in violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of India, and grant all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice."
2) The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that petitioner No.1
has joined in the respondent Company in December, 1976, as
Badli Filler. Further, at the time of joining, petitioner No.1 had
submitted VII Class Common Examination Board Certificate, dated
30.04.1975, issued by Chairman & District Educational Officer,
wherein his date of birth was shown as 14.02.1959. Ignoring the
same, the respondents have recorded the age of petitioner No.1 as
24 years as on 21.12.1976 i.e. date of birth as 21.12.1952. It is
further averred that in the years 1988 and 1990 when the
Management agreed for rectification of age of qualified employees,
petitioner No.1 submitted representations dated 10.07.1988 and
10.02.1990 for correction of his date of birth. However, the said
representations were not considered by the Management. 2
Thereafter, vide proceedings dated 02/20.01.2011, petitioner No.1
was intimated that he would be retiring from 01.01.2013. Further,
the request of the petitioner No.1 for correction of date of birth was
rejected by the Age Determination Committee at Area Level vide
proceedings dated 05.10.2012. Finally, petitioner No.1 was served
with the notice of termination of employment dated 21.11.2012.
Thereafter, petitioner No.1 has again made representation to refer
his case to Apex Medical Board. However, vide order
19/21.11.2012, petitioner No.1 was informed that he will be
retiring from service on 31.12.2012. Questioning the same, the
present Writ Petition is filed.
3) Heard Sri Rama Krishna Patibanda, learned counsel for the
petitioners, and Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned Standing
Counsel for the respondent Company.
4) Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the
date of birth of petitioner No.1 was certified in Identity Card by the
Manager as per VII class and SSC certificates. That apart, the
respondents have also imparted trainings to petitioner No.1 in
depillaring, coal cutting and Timbering for six months each.
Further, petitioner No.1 was also allowed for Jr. Munshi Grade-III
Test and interview in the year 2000 showing his date of birth as
14.02.1959. It is further contended that when the respondent 3
Management agreed for rectification of age of qualified employees,
petitioner No.1 has made representations to the authorities on
10.07.1988 and 10.02.1990 seeking correction of his date of birth,
duly enclosing the VII and SSC certificates, but no action was
taken thereon by the respondents. Even, the Age Determination
Committee at Area level also did not consider the certificates and
Identity Card produced by petitioner No.1 and erroneously
confirmed the age of petitioner No.1 as 24 years as on 21.12.1976
i.e. 21.12.1952. While drawing the attention of this Court to
clause (a) (iii) of Implementation Instruction No.76 wherein the
procedure for determination/ verification of the age of the
employees was laid down, the learned counsel has contended that
the date of birth recorded in School Leaving Certificate shall be
treated as correct date of birth, in case where the appointees have
pursued studies in a recognized educational institution, and the
same shall not be altered under any circumstances. Hence, the
learned counsel prayed to allow the present writ petition. In
support of his case, the learned counsel has relied on the judgment
dated 20.04.2022 rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No.2858 of 2022 (arising out of Special Leave to Appeal
(Civil) No.16886 of 2019).
4
5) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent
Company has contended that every person while entering into the
service of the Company shall have to declare his/her date of birth
by submitting necessary proof/record. Drawing the attention of
this Court to Clause A (i) enunciated in Implementation Instruction
No.76 dated 28.12.2002, learned Standing Counsel has submitted
that in case of appointees who have passed Matriculation, the date
of birth recorded in the said Certificate will be recorded in the
service records and the same will not be altered in any
circumstances. By relying on Clause A (iv) thereof, the learned
Standing Counsel submitted that in case of illiterates, the age as
assessed by the then Colliery Medical Officer at the time of his
initial medical examination shall be treated as date of birth of the
employee and the same will be recorded in the service records and
will not be altered under any circumstances. In the instant case,
the petitioner has joined the services of the respondent company
claiming as an illiterate and he did not submit any documentary
evidence in proof of his date of birth. Therefore, as per Joint
Bipartite Committee for Coal Industry (JBCCI) guidelines, his age
was assessed as 24 years as on 21.12.1976 (DOB : 21.12.1952)
and the same was entered in all the service records of the
petitioner. It is further contended that the Statutory Certificate
issued by the Board shall be taken into account as the competency 5
certificate of the candidate to appoint him as an official under the
Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, only but not as a certification of the
date of birth. During the year 2002, the Service Records
Verification Committee has verified the service records of the
employees to rectify the discrepancies in recording the date of
appointment and date of birth, etc. After due verification of the
records, the said Committee has confirmed the age of petitioner
No.1 as 24 years as on 21.12.1976. Learned Standing Counsel has
further contended that the case of petitioner No.1 was referred to
the Area Age Determination Committee and the said Committee
has reviewed the case of petitioner No.1 on 07.09.2012 and
confirmed the date of birth of petitioner No.1 as 24 years as on
21.12.1976 and the same was also acknowledged by petitioner
No.1 and he also assured that he would not raise any dispute on
the decision of the Committee in future. Learned Standing
Counsel has further contended that the present Writ Petition filed
at the fag end of the service is not maintainable and therefore
prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by the
respective parties and perused the record.
7) In the case on hand, petitioners contend that petitioner No.1
has passed VII Class before entering into service and as per 6
VII Class certificate, his date of birth is 14.02.1959. Evenly, it is
the specific assertion of the respondents that at the time of
entering into service, petitioner No.1 has not produced any
educational certificates and therefore he was treated as an
illiterate, referred to Medical Officer, who after conducting medical
examination, has assessed the age petitioner No.1 as 24 years as
on 21.12.1976 (i.e. DOB as 21.12.1952) and the same was entered
in the service records. The petitioners have largely relied on
Identity Card issued by the respondent Company in the name of
petitioner No.1 wherein his date of birth was shown as 14.02.1959.
But, it is to be seen that as contended by the respondents, the
Area Age Determination Committee after due verification of the
service record of the petitioner has found that the entry in the
Service record of the petitioner with regard to date of birth was
found tampered. Therefore, the Identity Card on which reliance
has been made by the petitioners cannot be looked into, as the
petitioners have not filed any reply denying the said averments in
the counter.
8) That apart, the petitioners further claim that petitioner No.1
has filed representations to the respondent Company on
10.07.1988 and 10.02.1990 seeking correction of his date of birth
as the Management has agreed for rectification, but the 7
respondents denied to have received any such representations and
even the copy of representations filed by the petitioners do not
contain the acknowledgment of the respondents. Hence, the same
cannot be relied upon.
9) In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
BURN STANDARD CO.LTD. AND OTHERS v. DINABANDHU
MAJUMDAR AND ANOTHER 1, at para 10, has held as under:
"Entertainment by High Courts of writ applications made by employees of the Government or its instrumentalities at the fag end of their services and when they are due for retirement from their services, in our view, is unwarranted. It would be so for the reason that no employee can claim a right to correction of birth date and entertainment of such writ applications for correction of dates of birth of some employees of Government or its instrumentalities will mar the chances of promotion of their juniors and prove to be an undue encouragement to the other employees to make similar applications at the fag end of their service careers with the sole object of preventing their retirements when due. Extraordinary nature of the jurisdiction vested in the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution, in our considered view, is not meant to make employees of Government or its instrumentalities to continue in service beyond the period of their entitlement according to dates of birth accepted by their employers, placing reliance on the so-called newly-found material."
10) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary & Commissioner,
Home ... vs R. Kirubakaran 2, has held that request for
1 (1995) 4 SCC 172 2 AIR 1993 SC 2647 8
rectification of date of birth has to be made at the earliest point of
time. The law laid down in Kirubakaran's (referred supra) has
also been followed by the Apex Court in its several other
subsequent judgments. Relevant observations of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Kirubakaran's case (referred supra) are as
under:
"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 officer, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose the promotion 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, than such application must be filed 9
within the time, which can be held to be reasonable. The application 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 in on the applicant, to prove about 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."
11) Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its latest decision in
Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v.
T.P. Nataraja 3, held as under:
"22. Considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court the law on change of date of birth can be summarized as under:
(i) application for change of date of birth can only be as per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable;
(ii) even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right;
(iii) application can be rejected on the ground of delay and latches also more particularly when it is made at the fag end of service and/or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation."
3 2021 SCC OnLine SC 767 10
12) Coming to the decision relied by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in Civil Appeal No.2858 of 2022, the same is
distinguishable on facts, since in the said case, the date of birth of
the employee was correctly recorded initially in service book and
the same was later altered without notice to the employee. But, in
the present case, it is the specific case of the respondents that the
date of birth of the petitioner was recorded in the service records as
'24 years as on 21.12.1976' based on the medical examination
conducted by the Medical Officer and the same continued. Hence,
the judgment relied by the petitioner is of no avail to him.
13) In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner No.1 is
raising objection with regard to his date of birth since the year
2012 and except making a bald statement, no specific and tenable
reasons are forthcoming for the delay on their part. Thus, viewed
from any angle, this Court does not find any merit in the present
writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
14) In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
No costs.
____________________
PULLA KARTHIK, J
Date : 10 - 01 - 2024
sur
