Telangana High Court
Eligeti Sriramulu S/O. Rajam vs The Singereni Collieries Company ... on 28 May, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
wp_4329_2017
NBK, J
THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.4329 of 2017
ORDER:
The case of the petitioner, as per the writ affidavit, is that he was
born on 14.06.1969 at Bellampalli village and mandal, Mancherial
District, Telangana State, and he joined the respondent company on 10-
02-1986 as a Badli Coal Filler and obtained promotion to the post of
Lamp Room Attendant, Category V. His date of birth has consistently
been recorded as 14-06-1969 in all official records including his S.S.C.
certificate, medical certificates dated 01.07.1989, 30.04.1990,
10.01.1991, 10.02.1991, 04.02.1991, 18.03.1991, 06.10.1997,
14.09.2001, 04.09.2001, and 16.09.2003, as well as in the Employees
Personal Record dated 23.08.2002. However, while applying for the
Mining Sardar Examination in 2003, his application was rejected due to
an alleged discrepancy in his Service Book, where although his date of
birth was stated as 14.06.1969, his age was recorded as 25 years as on
01.01.1986. He made several oral representations and had also filed
W.P.No.614 of 2003, seeking correction of the clerical mistake. This
Court, by order dated 13.08.2015, disposed of the writ petition as per the
common order dated 31.03.2015 in W.P. No.33343 of 2012 and batch,
directing the respondent company to subject the petitioner to scientific
medical examination by a panel of specialists followed by review by the
Apex Medical Board. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the
petitioner underwent medical assessment at the Company Hospital,
Kothagudem, on 12.03.2016 and appeared before the Apex Medical
Board on 29.08.2016, where he submitted his S.S.C. certificate dated
wp_4329_2017
NBK, J
06.06.1986 and other relevant documents; however, the 3rdrespondent,
through proceedings dated 27.11.2016, confirmed the original age
determination of 25 years as on 01.01.1986, thereby dismissing the
validity of the S.S.C. certificate on the ground that it was obtained after
his appointment in the respondent company, and that he would have
been a minor, aged 16 years, at the time of appointment. The petitioner
objected to the same stating that prior to the amendment to Section 40 of
the Mines Rules, 1955, the minimum age for the Badli Coal Filler post
was 16 years, and that he appeared for his S.S.C. exams before joining
service though the certificate was issued later. He further submits that
the Apex Medical Board proceedings and Age Assessment Report dated
29.08.2016 lack transparency, scientific methodology, or disclosure of
any tests such as ossification, radiological, or skin analysis; and that the
process violated the company's own Executive Instructions dated
01.08.1988 and Implementation Instructions No.76 dated 25.04.1988. It
is alleged that the proceedings of the respondent authorities in
determining is age lacks transparency, and company's stand is
inconsistent with the precedents set for other employees like his elder
brothers Eligeti Mallesh and EligetiNarasimhulu, whose dates of birth
are 13.06.1962 and 30.08.1963, respectively, and therefore the
proceedings are arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution. The petitioner therefore prays for a writ of Mandamus
declaring proceedings dated 27.11.2016 and the Age Assessment Report
dated 29.08.2016 as illegal and seeks a direction to the respondent
company to rectify his date of birth as per the S.S.C. certificate and
wp_4329_2017
NBK, J
continue him in service till the superannuation date of 31.01.2029 with
all consequential benefits.
2. Heard Mr. Surendra Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner; and
Ms. A. Bhavani, learned counsel representing Mr. P. Sri Harsha Reddy,
learned Standing Counsel for respondent-Singareni Collieries. Perused
the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner,
Eligeti Sri Ramulu, retired as Lamp Room Attendant, was illegally
treated as being over 55 years of age based on an arbitrary and
unscientific assessment, despite his actual date of birth being 14.06.1969
as evidenced by a valid SSC certificate issued on 06.06.1986 and a
bonafide certificate dated 25.11.2005 from the Church of South India
High School, Bellampalli. It is contended that the petitioner joined
service on 06.02.1986 as a Floating Badli Filler on a temporary basis
when he was only 16 years, 7 months, and 23 days old, which was
permissible under Section 40(2) of the Mines Act, 1952, as he was over
16 years and working under supervision. It is contended that the
petitioner did not submit himself as illiterate during recruitment and was
in fact studying in Class X at the time of applying on 01.12.1985, and
later appeared for his SSC Examination in March 1986.
4. Further, the initial age assessment conducted by the Colliery
Medical Officer was not based on any scientific test and was merely an
approximation made on physical appearance without standard medical
procedures, and thus the same could not be treated as conclusive for age
determination. It is further contended that the Apex Medical Board
wp_4329_2017
NBK, J
examination dated 12.03.2016 was vitiated by procedural impropriety,
as the petitioner was examined only by a single unidentified person
without any supporting test reports being provided, and despite the SSC
certificate being found genuine, the Board arbitrarily upheld the
previously recorded age. It is also contended that under JBCCI's
Implementation Instruction No.76 dated 25.04.1988 and the National
Coal Wage Agreement-III, preference is to be given to matriculation
certificates for determination of age, and that the petitioner's permanent
appointment as General Mazdoor w.e.f. 01.09.1990 vide proceedings
dated 11.09.1990, when he was a major and had completed 190 musters,
should be treated as the point of reckoning for age determination,
rendering his recorded date of birth as 01.01.1961 inaccurate and
unsustainable. It is therefore contended that the impugned proceedings
dated 27.11.2016 are arbitrary and illegal.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, basing on the
counter affidavit, contends that the petitioner, at the time of joining the
respondent company on 06.02.1986 as a Floating Badli Filler, declared
himself as an illiterate aged 26 years in his application dated 02.12.1985
and did not submit any documentary proof of age, and his age was
assessed by the Colliery Medical Officer as 25 years as on 01.01.1986,
which was duly recorded in the Initial Medical Examination Report,
Identity and Service Card, and B-Register, all of which were accepted
by the petitioner without any objection at that time. It is contended that
the petitioner's subsequent reliance on an SSC certificate issued on
06.06.1986 claiming his date of birth as 14.06.1969 is impermissible, as
the said certificate was obtained after joining service and would render
wp_4329_2017
NBK, J
him a minor aged 16 years at the time of appointment, thereby violating
Section 40(1) of the Mines Act, 1952, which mandates that no person
below 18 years shall be allowed to work in a mine.It is also contended
that even if the petitioner seeks protection under Section 40(2) of the
Mines Act, the initial declaration of being illiterate and the absence of a
matriculation certificate at the time of appointment render the
subsequent educational credentials legally irrelevant for the purpose of
determining age; moreover, in compliance with the directions of this
Hon'ble Court in WP No. 33343 of 2012 dated 31.03.2015, the Apex
Medical Board comprising qualified specialists conducted an age
determination examination on 12.03.2016 and opined that the petitioner
was above 55 years as on 29.08.2016, which formed the basis of the
impugned proceedings dated 27.11.2016. It is also contended that the
said proceedings were issued strictly in accordance with the JBCCI's
Implementation Instruction No.76 dated 25.04.1988 and Circular No.
P.49/4702/IR/1270 dated 01.08.1988, both of which prescribe that in the
case of illiterate persons, the age recorded at the time of initial medical
examination is final and conclusive for all service purposes. It is
contended that the petitioner's allegations that the Apex Medical Board
did not conduct proper tests or that the panel of doctors did not examine
him are baseless, and that the medical assessment was conducted in
accordance with established norms and under due scientific process. It is
further contended that the petitioner's claim that he became a permanent
employee only on 01.09.1990 as General Mazdoor is misleading, as his
service had already commenced in 1986, and the age recorded at the
wp_4329_2017
NBK, J
time of entry governs retirement and service conditions, and therefore
there is no merit in the writ petition.
6. Learned Standing Counsel relies on The General Manager, M/s
Barsua Iron Ore Mines v. The Vice President, United Mines Mazdoor
Union and Others (Civil Appeal No. 4686 of 2024), wherein the
Supreme Court addressed a dispute concerning an employee's date of
birth. It is submitted that in M/s Barsua Iron Ore Mines case, the
respondent therein, initially employed as a Piece Rated Mazdoor in
1972, declared his age as 24 years without specifying the date of birth or
documentary proof, and later, he sought to change his recorded date of
birth to 12.03.1955, with the support of a School Transfer Certificate,
with a view to extend his service period and claim back wages. The
Central Government Industrial Tribunal and the High Court of Orissa
had ruled in his favor; however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reversed
these decisions, emphasizing the principle of estoppel and the
importance of consistency in employment records, by holding that
applications for changing the date of birth must adhere to relevant
provisions and cannot be claimed as a matter of right, especially when
made belatedly. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the
employee's claims were dismissed. Learned Standing Counsel therefore
contends that petitioner's claim for change of date of birth at a belated
stage cannot be entertained and therefore there is no illegality in the
impugned proceedings and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the
record, it may be noted that the petitioner joined service on 06.02.1986
as a Floating Badli Filler, a temporary post on piece-rate wages, and
wp_4329_2017
NBK, J
admittedly did not submit any documentary proof of age at the time of
joining. Further, in his application dated 02.12.1985, he described
himself as illiterate aged 26 years, and his age was assessed by the
Colliery Medical Officer as 25 years as on 01.01.1986, which was
recorded in the Initial Medical Examination Report, Identity Card,
Service Card, and B-Register, all of which were signed/thumb-marked
by the petitioner without any protest or objection. His subsequent claim
that he was born on 14.06.1969 based on an SSC Certificate issued on
06.06.1986 by the Board of Secondary Education, Andhra Pradesh,
purportedly acquired after joining service, is contrary to the settled
position under JBCCI Implementation Instruction No.76 dated
25.04.1988 and Circular No.P.49/4702/IR/1270 dated 01.08.1988, which
prescribe that for illiterate employees or those without proof of age at
the time of joining, the age determined by the Initial Medical
Examination is final and binding. The petitioner's contention that he
was in 10thclass at the time of applying for employment and passed SSC
Examination in March 1986 does not alter the fact that he declared
himself as illiterate and joined service prior to submitting the SSC
certificate, and he has not produced any documentary evidence to
support his assertion of being in school during that period. Reliance
placed on the certificate dated 25.11.2005 issued by Church of South
India High School, Bellampalli, showing the same date of birth, does
not advance the petitioner's case, as it was procured much later and does
not fulfill the legal requirement for proof of age under the applicable
instructions. Further, the contention that Section 40(1) of the Mines Act,
1952 bars employment of minors under 18 years is qualified by Section
wp_4329_2017
NBK, J
40(2), which permits employment of persons aged 16 and above under
supervision, but in this case, even such exemption is irrelevant as the
petitioner's recorded and accepted age was 25 years at the time of his
entry in service.
8. It may be noted that the petitioner did not raise any objection at
the relevant time when his date of birth was recorded at the time of
entering into service and he accepted all service benefits, promotions,
and retirement benefits on the basis of recorded date of birth.
Furthermore, the Apex Medical Board, constituted in pursuance of the
direction of this Court in W.P.No.33343 of 2012 dated 31.03.2015,
conducted an examination on 12.03.2016 and confirmed that the
petitioner was above 55 years as on 29.08.2016. The petitioner's
allegation that only one doctor examined him in a closed room without
conducting tests cannot be countenanced as it is the specific stand of the
respondent, based on record, that a panel comprising an Occupational
Health Specialist, Dental Surgeon, Radiologist, Ophthalmologist, ENT
Surgeon, and Orthopedic Surgeon conducted the examination in
accordance with protocol. The petitioner's regularization as General
Mazdoor vide proceedings dated 11.09.1990, effective from 01.09.1990,
is also based on the original recorded age and does not indicate any
revised age determination, and therefore the petitioner's contention that
completion of 190 musters and issuance of Medical Fitness Certificate
by Superintendent of Area Hospital, Godavari Khani, dated 10.02.1991
bearing date of birth as 14.06.1969 alters his legal age is devoid of
merit, as such certificate cannot override the recorded and accepted date
wp_4329_2017
NBK, J
of birth at the time of entry into employment with the respondent
Company.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in M/s Barsua Iron Ore Mines
(supra), by referring to Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development
Limited v T.P.Nataraja 1 concurred with paragraph 11 of the said
judgment, by observing at paragraph 20 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."
10. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any grounds to
interfere with the impugned proceedings dated 27.11.2016 confirming
the petitioner's age as above 55 years as on 29.08.2016.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
28th May, 2025
ksm
(2021) 12 SCC 27
