Telangana High Court

M. Rajeswar vs The Singareni Collieries Company ... on 3 July, 2025

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                    WRIT PETITION No. 31425 of 2024

ORDER:

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for the

following relief:

            "...to           declare     the         impugned        order
            Ref.No.MMR/SK/W15/               2024      /984       dated

28.03.2024 issued by the 7th respondent, vide Ref. No. MMR/PER/L/062/24/4242 dated 19.09.2024 issued by the 5th respondent and Ref. No. MMR/SK/P.14/24/2180 dated 21.09.2024 issued by the 6th respondent intimating the petitioner's due date of retirement as 31.05.2025 though the date of retirement on 30.06.2030 as per date of birth as 25.06.1970 as recorded by the 7th class examination of Board is illegal, arbitrary and consequently, direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service as Pump Operator in the Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL) Bhadradri Kothagudem district, by granting all the service benefits to the petitioner and pass..."

2. Heard Sri G. Allabaksh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri

P. Sriharsha Reddy, learned Standing counsel for Singareni

Collieries Company Limited (SCCL) for respondent Nos.1 to 7 and

the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology for

respondent No.8.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

was appointed as a Badlifiller in the respondent Singareni Collieries

Company Limited (for short "SCCL") on 23.08.1988. Subsequently,

the petitioner was promoted to the position of Tunnel Mazdoor, then

to General Mazdoor and now currently as a Pump Operator. At the

time of entering into service, authorities recorded Date of Birth of

the petitioner as 25.05.1964 instead of 25.06.1970. According to

his School Certificates or records, such as the Transfer certificate,

Bona Fide Certificate dated 18.02.1999, 7th class Board examination

Memo of Marks certificate, and his date of Birth Certificate dated

22.02.1999 issued by the Headmaster, ZPSS Garepally,

Sulatanabad Mandal, Karimnagar District, his date of birth was

recorded as 25.06.1970. Whereas the respondent company recorded

his date of birth as 25.05.1964.

3(i) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

since the petitioner studied up to 7th class, he was under the bona

fide impression that he would be continued in service up to

30.06.2030, i.e. till he attains the age of superannuation as per his

school certificates. As a mistake was made in recording the

petitioner's date of birth in the service records, the petitioner

submitted a representation on 22.12.2023 stating that to continue

him in service up to 31.05.2030 as his date of birth was recorded as

25.06.1970 in school records, but not as 25.05.1964. Nonetheless,

this was not considered and on the other hand, on 22.12.2023, the

respondents informed the petitioner orally that he would retire from

service w.e.f. 30.05.2024 as his last working day, which is incorrect

and false.

3(ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

the petitioner noticed that a mistake was made in the preparation

and maintenance of the service records, and the same is contrary to

his school records. His age was 18 years as on the date of his

appointment, i.e. 23.08.1988 vide Letter No.P.BPA/85.A/3307. As

per school records, his date of Birth is 25.06.1970. Based on the

school and Memo of Marks certificate issued by the 7th Class

Examination of the Comprehensive Board, he shall continue in

service up to 31.05.2030 to attain superannuation. Therefore, the

entire action, apart from the above discrepancy in the preparation

and maintaining the service records as well the advance intimation

of retirement, suffers from incurable legal impediments and

contrary to the date of birth rules and is in gross violation. The

same was brought to the respondents' notice through a detailed

representation dated 22.12.2023 with a request to correct his date

of birth as 25.06.1970 and on that basis, continue him in service till

31.05.2030.

3(iii) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondents and orally

requested to correct his age/date of birth recorded in the

subsequent records, which do not align with the educational

certificate issued by the Board and School certificates, duly

enclosing the relevant documents and sought for correction of the

same. Since the respondents had taken no action, the petitioner

filed W.P.No.3814 of 2024, declaring the action of the respondents

in the description of the age/date of birth of the petitioner as 24

years instead of 18 years as on the date of his appointment, i.e.

23.08.1988 thereby seeking to retire from service on 30.05.2024

without considering the petitioner's representation dated

22.12.2023, and this Court passed the following order:

"In view of the submission of the respective parties, without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent No. 5 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 22.12.2023 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

Thereafter, the 7th respondent issued a letter, Ref. No.

MMR/SK/W15/2024/984 dated 28.03.2024 indicating his date of

retirement as 25.05.2025. Again, the 5th respondent issued another

letter Ref.No.MMR/PER/L/062/24/4242, dated 19.09.2024, stating

that there is no such provision for correction of date of birth based

on the transfer certificate, which varies from the date of Birth

recorded in the Company service record. Ultimately the 6th

respondent has issued a letter, Ref. No.MMR/SK/P.14/24/2180

dated 21.09.2024 intimating his date of retirement as 31.05.2025.

In this connection, he submitted that he studied up to 7th class, and

his date of birth is recorded in the school as well as in the 7th class

examination Board, which is 25.06.1970. According to that date,

his date of retirement would be 30.06.2030 but not 31.05.2025.

3(iv) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

the respondents have wrongly recorded petitioner's date of birth as

25.05.1964. The respondents recorded the petitioner's date of birth

as 25.05.1964, as per the Medical Advisor of the Company, and his

age was shown as 24 years as on 22.08.1988. However, his date of

birth is 25.06.1970, as per date of birth certificate dated

22.02.1999, issued by the Headmaster, ZPSS, Garrepally. To

resolve the age dispute, the respondents must follow the rules dated

August 3, 1959. To resolve age disputes of the employees of the

Company, the Company has issued rules called as Singareni

Collieries Company Limited age retirement rules with effect from

03.08.1959, which are as follows:

"THE PROCEDURE for DETERMINATION / VERIFICATON OF THE AGE OF THE EMPLOYEES AS FINALISED BY JBCCI IN 1981 IS AS FOLLOWS:

PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION/Verification OF AGE OF THE EMPLOYEES :

Par:1 (A) Determination of the age at the time at First of appointment

(i) Matriculates In the case of appointees who have passed Matriculation or equivalent examination, 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.

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.

3(v) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

as per the above rules, the petitioner is a non-matriculation but

educated. His case has to be considered under the non-

matriculation category. The petitioner studied in a recognized

educational institution i.e. Zilla Parishad Secondary Grade School,

Garregally. In his school records, his date of birth is recorded as

25.06.1970, and as such, the sub-clause (ii) of the age retirement

rules applies to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner's date of

retirement is 31.05.2030, but not 31.05.2025.

3(vi) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

following judgments:

i) Division Bench judgment, dated 25.09.2024 Writ Appeal No.684 of 2024 of our own High Court.

ii) B. Komaraiah Vs. Singareni Collieries Company Limited 1 Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 7 filed a counter

stating that the petitioner did not submit any documentary proof

regarding his age/date of birth at the time of initial appointment in

the Respondent Company. The age of the petitioner was assessed

as 24 years as on 25.05.1988 by the Colliery Medical Officer in the

Age Assessment Form as well in the Initial Medical

Examination(IME) Form-O, and the same date of birth was recorded

in the statutory documents such as Identity & Service Card, B-

Company, once the Age/date of birth of the employee is recorded in

the service records, it will be authentic and final, and whatever

certificates/documents, such as Transfer Certificate, SSC,

submitted by the employee after his appointment in the respondent

Company, cannot be taken into consideration for correction of his

date of birth.

1992(2) ALT 198

4(i) It is further pleaded that as per Implementation

Instruction No.76 of the Joint Bipartite Committee for Coal Industry

(JBCCI), the procedure in the determination of the age/ date of birth

at the time of appointment or in respect of existing employees are as

follows:

Determination of the age at the time of appointment:

(i) Matriculates In the case of appointees who have passed Matriculation or equivalent examination, 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.

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.

iii) Illiterate:

In the case of appointees not covered under the foregoing clauses, the date of birth will be determined by the Colliery Medical Officer keeping in view any documentary 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 allured under any circumstances."

4(ii) It is further pleaded that the petitioner herein was

appointed in the respondent Company on 30.08.1988 and is

presently working as a Pump Operator at Shantikhani Mine,

Mandamarri Area of the respondent Company. At the time of his

appointment, he has not produced any proof of his age or

educational certificates. As such, as per the rules of the respondent

Company and JBCCI guidelines, if any employee is an illiterate or

has not submitted any proof of his age/date of birth at the time of

his appointment, his age/date of birth will be determined by the

Colliery Medical Officer and the age/date of birth as determined by

the Colliery Medical Officer shall be treated as correct date of birth

and the same will not be altered under any circumstances. In view

of the same, since the petitioner had not submitted any proof of his

age/date of birth at the time of his appointment, he was referred to

the Colliery Medical Officer for assessment of his age/date of birth.

The Colliery Medical Officer, as per the rules of the respondent

Company and JBCCI guidelines, has assessed the age of the

petitioner as 24 years as on 25.05.1988 i.e., 25.05.1964, and the

petitioner has acknowledged it and the same was treated as final

and subsequently recorded in all the statutory records of the

respondent Company such as Form-O. Form-B Register, Service

Book and EPR. Furthermore, the petitioner has self-declared his

date of birth as 25.05.1964 in the CMPF Form-A, as well as in the

Pension nominations (Forms PS-3 and PS-4). The petitioner is due

for retirement from the services of the respondent Company on

attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 30.05.2025,

and he is representing to change his date of birth at the fag end of

his service, which it not tenable under law. The petitioner, during

his entire period of service, has never represented for correction of

his date of birth and has raised this issue at the fag end of his

service with mala fide intentions.

4(iii) It is further pleaded that the petitioner has submitted a

representation dated 22.12.2023 requesting for correction of his

date of birth based on his VI class Transfer Certificate issued by

ZPSS, Garrepally, Sulthanabad, Karimnagar District. The

petitioner, throughout his entire period of service, has never

approached or represented himself in connection with the

discrepancy in his Age/Date of Birth. He also did not represent

himself after the issuance of the superannuation notice, one year

before his due date of retirement, which is not tenable.

4(iv) Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Rural

Infrastructure Development Limited Vs. T.P. Nataraja and

others 2. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

(2021) 12 SCC 27

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also filed a reply affidavit

inter alia reiterating the contents of the petition that the incorrect

date of birth recorded by the respondents in the service records

came to the petitioner's notice only after the respondents had

intimated him orally his date of retirement as 31.05.2025.

Thereafter, he approached the respondents and orally requested

that his date of birth be corrected in the service records in

consonance with his school certificates. According to school

records, the petitioner's date of birth is 25.06.1970, and as per this,

the date of retirement shall be 30.06.2030, but not 31.05.2025.

FINDINGS OF THIS COURT:

6. There is no dispute that the petitioner joined in the

respondents' Company on 23.08.1988, and at the time of

appointment, he did not produce any certificate with regard to his

date of birth. As per respondents' Company Rules and JBCCI

guidelines, if any employee an illiterate or has not submitted any

proof of his age/date of birth at the time of his appointment, his

age/date of birth will be determined by the Colliery Medical Officer

and the age/date of birth as determined by the Colliery Medical

Officer shall be treated as the correct date of birth and the same will

not be altered under any circumstances. In view of the same, since

the petitioner had not submitted any proof of his age/date of birth

at the time of his appointment, he was referred to the Colliery

Medical Officer for assessment of his age/date of birth. The Colliery

Medical Officer, as per the rules of the respondent Company and

JBCCI guidelines, has assessed the age of the petitioner as 24 years

as on 25.05.1988, i.e., 25.05.1964 and the petitioner has

acknowledged it and the same was treated as final and

subsequently recorded in all the statutory records of the respondent

Company such as Form-O. Form-B Register, Service Book and EPR.

The petitioner neither denied it nor questioned the said date of birth

as determined by the Colliery Medical Officer till the fag end of his

service.

7. It is pertinent to mention here that as per personal

information provided by the petitioner to the Coal Mines Provident

Fund Organization, his wife's name is mentioned as M. Sunitha,

and her date of birth is shown as 01.07.1968. If the petitioner's

date of birth, as alleged by him, is in the year 1970, would he accept

his wife's date of year as 1968? That itself shows that the

petitioner did not submit any document with regard to his date of

birth at the time of his appointment. As per the respondents'

Company Rules and JBCCI guidelines, the entire record was

prepared, and the petitioner signed all the forms without any

protest. In view of the same, it is made clear that the respondent

Company did not make any incorrect entry regarding the date of

birth of the petitioner is concerned.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Division

Bench judgment, dated 25.09.2024 Writ Appeal No.684 of 2024 of

our own High Court(1st supra) wherein it is observed that in case of

dispute with regard to the age of an employee, the same has to be

referred to the Age Determination Committee to resolve the same.

In the case on hand, since the petitioner did not produce any

record regarding his date of birth at the time of his appointment, he

was referred to the Colliery Medical Officer for assessment of his age

and date of birth. The Colliery Medical Officer, as per the rules of

the respondent Company and JBCCI guidelines, has assessed the

petitioner's age as 24 years as on 25.05.1988, i.e., 25.05.1964. As

such, the above judgment does not apply to the case on hand.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision

of this Court in B. Komaraiah (2nd supra), wherein it was observed

as follows:

"....the impugned order cannot be sustained nor can the determination of the age of the petitioner arrived at by the Age Determination Committee without considering the Transfer Certificate be considered as correct. The 1st respondent is therefore directed to consider the request of the petitioner for correction of the date of birth on the basis of the Transfer

Certificate which the petitioner had produced. Admittedly, the original of that Certificate was issued prior to the date of his entry into service. The 1st respondent shall consider the effect of that certificate and correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the service record, so as to enable him to continue in service till he attains age retirement determined on a consideration of the above certificate. There will be direction that till such time a final decision is rendered, petitioner shall be continued in service."

In the above case, the Transfer Certificate was issued before

his date of appointment. At that juncture, this Court directed to

consider the Transfer Certificate. There are several judgments of

the Apex Court that for the determination of date of birth, a Transfer

Certificate is not the basis.

In the case on hand, the petitioner did not produce any

document to prove his date of birth at the time of his appointment.

As stated supra, the Colliery Medical Officer, as per the rules of the

respondent Company and JBCCI guidelines, has assessed the age of

the petitioner as 24 years as on 25.05.1988 i.e., 25.05.1964.

Hence, the above case does not apply to present set of facts.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Rural

Infrastructure Development Ltd., (stated supra) wherein at para

No.11 it is observed as follows:

"11. 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 laches 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."

In the case on hand, the petitioner made a representation to

the respondent authorities informing them about his date of

superannuation. However, at the time of appointment, he did not

produce any document to confirm his date of birth. Hence, the

question of correction of date of birth does not arise. As such, this

Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand

closed.

_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J

3rd day of July, 2025