Telangana High Court
Sri K.Krishna Reddy, vs The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., on 28 May, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 13589 OF 2016
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed declaring the action of
respondents in determining the age without conducting medical
examination, confirming the date of birth of petitioner as
10.04.1956, as illegal. Consequently, a direction is sought to set
aside the Determination Committee Report dated 24.03.2016
and allow petitioner to continue in service as per his actual date
of birth 20.06.1957.
2. Petitioner's case, in brief, is that he was appointed
as Temporary Tunnel Mazdoor in respondent Singareni
Collieries Company Limited on 02.05.1976, showing his date of
birth as 20.06.1957. At the time of his appointment,
respondents referred him for medical examination under Rule
29-B of the Mine Rules, 1955. To his surprise, the officers of
respondents without notice, altered his date of birth by
rounding of his original date of birth as 10.04.1956 which is
nothing but tampering the record. It is stated respondents
informed him that he had to retire in April 2016, then he
immediately made representation dated 17.11.2011 to
respondents informing his original date of birth as 20.06.1975
but there was no action. It is the case of petitioner that in all the
documents, such as PAN, ID card, during the short Firing
Examination under Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, his date of
birth was shown as 20.06.1957 and after 30 years, respondents
and their Welfare Officer altered the date of birth as 10.04.1956
in the records. According to petitioner, he studied up to 6th
class and he submitted Transfer Certificate showing the date of
birth as 20.06.1957.
It is stated, when petitioner submitted
representation for rectification of date of birth in the service
register on 17.11.2011, respondents directed him to attend
before the Age Determination Committee, but because of their
inaction, he filed Writ Petition No. 38595 of 2015 wherein this
Court directed to determine the age as per law by conducting
medical examination. Since the said direction was not complied
with, petitioner is stated to have filed C.C.No. 453 of 2016.
Thereafter, respondents mechanically came to the conclusion
that they had verified the original company records such as ID,
Service record, Form-B Register, Form-A CMPF nomination and
confirmed the date of birth as 10.04.1956, but they have not
verified Form-O which is required under Rule 29-B. Petitioner
complains that in the absence of any medical test by the
Medical Board, without verification of record, confirming the
date of birth as 10.04.1956 instead of 20.06.1957 is nothing but
nullifying the right of petitioner and intending to retire him
prematurely.
3. On behalf of respondents, a counter was filed by the
General Manager, bringing to the notice of this Court that as per
Implementation Instruction No. 76 of the JBCCI, the procedure
in determination of age /date of birth at the time of appointment
in respect of illiterates is, the date of birth would be determined
by the Colliery Medical Officer keeping in view any documentary
and the relevant evidence as produced by the appointee. Date
of birth as determined shall be treated as correct and the same
would not be altered under any cirucmstance. It is stated, since
petitioner did not submit any documentary proof of his age
/date of birth at the time of his appointment, the then Colliery
Medical Officer had assessed his age as 10.04.1956 in the Initial
Medical Examination Form and the age as assessed is authentic
and final.
It is also stated that petitioner filed Writ Petition No.
38595 of 2015 wherein this Court in WPMP No. 49682 of 2015
directed respondents to refer petitioner to medical examination
in order to assess his age vide order dated 30.11.2015, in
compliance therewith, respondents advised petitioner by giving
seven days notice vide letter dated 18.03.2016 informing the
date and time of medical examination all over fresh by the
doctors of SCCL at the first instance to determine his age.
Accordingly, he was examined by a panel of doctors on
19.03.2016, thereafter, he was advised to attend before the Apex
Medical Board for assessment of his age on 24.03.2016,
petitioner attended the Board which determined his age as
above 60 years as on 24.03.2016, hence, the date of birth
recorded in the company records as 10.04.1956 was confirmed
and the same was informed to petitioner. It is stated that
accordingly, petitioner retired from service of respondent
company on 30.04.2016 and all retirement benefits were paid to
him. According to this respondent, in M/s Bharat Coking Coal
Ltd v. Shyam Kishore Singh 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court
referring to various judgments held that the request for change
of date of birth in service records at the fag end of service is not
sustainable and also even if there is good evidence to establish
that the recorded date of birth is erroneous, correction cannot
be claimed as a matter of right. Since petitioner filed this Writ
Petition at the fag end of service for correction of his date of
birth, the same is not maintainable under law.
(2020) 3 SCC 411
4. Heard M/s Om Law Firm on behalf of petitioner.
They relied on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in
The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. v. Manchala
Anjaiah (Writ Appeal No. 23 of 2020), Writ Petition No. 19645
of 2018 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Life
Insurance Corporation of India v. R. Basavaraju 2 . On
behalf of respondents, heard Ms. Bhavani, counsel representing
Sri P. Sriharsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel.
5. From the material on record, it is clear that
petitioner did not submit any documentary proof of his age
/date of birth at the time of his appointment, hence, the then
Colliery Medical Officer had assessed his date of birth as
10.04.1956 in the Initial Medical Examination Form and the age
as assessed is authentic and final. Further, pursuant to the
direction issued by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition,
petitioner was examined by a panel of doctors on 19.03.2016,
thereafter, by the Apex Medical Board, which following due
procedure, determined his age as above 60 years as on
24.03.2016, hence, the date of birth recorded in the company
records as 10.04.1956 was confirmed and the same was
informed to petitioner. It is stated that accordingly, petitioner
retired from service of respondent company on 30.04.2016 and
(2016) 15 SCC 781
all retirement benefits were paid to him. Hence, the contention
of petitioner that his date of birth was tampered in the service
records cannot be said to be correct. Learned counsel for
petitioner relied on the order in Writ Petition No. 19645 of 2018,
wherein the learned Single Judge observed that 'when an
employee cannot seek correction of his date of birth at the fag
end of his career, even the same principle applies to the
respondents i.e respondents also cannot correct the date of
birth of petitioner at the fag end of service, that too unilaterally
without giving any notice and without giving opportunity to
him'. But the said order is not applicable to the facts of this
case for, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 38595 of 2015 wherein
this Court in WPMP No. 49682 of 2015 directed respondents to
refer petitioner to medical examination in order to assess his
age vide order dated 30.11.2015, in compliance therewith,
respondents advised petitioner by giving seven days' notice vide
letter dated 18.03.2016 informing the date and time of medical
examination all over fresh by the doctors of SCCL at the first
instance to determine his age. Accordingly, he was examined by
a panel of doctors on 19.03.2016, thereafter, he was advised to
attend before the Apex Medical Board for assessment of his age
on 24.03.2016, petitioner attended the Board which determined
his age as above 60 years as on 24.03.2016, hence, the date of
birth recorded in the company records as 10.04.1956 was
confirmed and the same was informed to petitioner. In view of
the same, the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 23 of 2020 also is
not applicable to the facts of this case where also, the date of
birth was changed without giving notice to the employee
concerned.
6. In the light of the above, this Court is of the
considered opinion that Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No
costs.
8. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any
shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
28th May 2025
ksld
