Telangana High Court
Bodiga Krishna Swamy Ec No.0206965 vs The Singareni Collieries Company ... on 28 May, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 23555 OF 2019
O R D E R:
The case of petitioner is that he passed SSC in
March, 1983 and was appointed in the 1st respondent -
Singareni Collieries Company Limited on 19-12-1985. As per
the SSC certificate, his date of birth is 14-05-1967 and he is
entitled to be continued in service up to 31-05-2027, however, it
was wrongly entered in service records as 26 years as on
01-11-1985, as a result, he was forced to retire effective from
01-11-2019. Petitioner is therefore, stated to have submitted
several representations right from 15-05-1989, 16.10.2012,
07.04.2016 duly enclosing the copies of SSC certificate and the
authorities assured him that his grievance would be resolved in
due course of time. During 2017, the 4th respondent asked him
to submit original SSC Certificate, accordingly, he submitted the
same and thereafter, his representation was forwarded to the
office of the 3rd respondent, who, vide letter dated 27-09-2018
directed the 4th respondent to send original SSC memo, so as to
refer the same to the Board of Secondary Education,
Hyderabad, for ascertaining its genuineness. At that juncture,
the 4th respondent sent his original SSC memo to the office of
the 3rd respondent for change of his date of birth in the
Employee Personnel Record vide letter dated 30-08-2019.
Despite, so far, nothing resulted positively. However, in turn, a
notice was displayed on the notice board stating that petitioner
would be retiring from service from 01-11-2010. Hence, he
approached this Court.
According to petitioner, as per Implementation
Instruction No.76, date of birth of the existing employees has to
be reviewed as per SSC Certificate issued prior to the date of
initial appointment. Admittedly, he passed SSC much prior to
the date of initial appointment, therefore, his date of birth has
to be corrected as 14-05-1967 instead of 26 years as on
01-11-1985 and that he is am entitled to be continued in service
up to 31-05-2027.
2. The General Manager of the Respondent Company
filed the counter to the effect that petitioner was appointed in
the respondent Company as Badli Filler underground on
20-12-1985 and subsequently, was promoted as SDL/LHD
Operator and posted to work at KTK-8 incline. At the time of his
initial appointment, he did not submit any proof pertaining to
his age/date of birth. As per the rules of the respondent
company, he was referred to Colliery Medical Officer who
assessed his age as 26 years as on 01-11-1985 and accordingly,
petitioner's date of birth was recorded as 01-11-1959 in the
Initial Medical Examination Report (Form-O) and the same was
accepted by petitioner by putting his thumb impression and his
date of birth was recorded as 01-11-1959 in service Book and
other statutory records. He retired from service on attaining age
of superannuation on 01-11-2019. It is contended that
petitioner filed this Writ Petition at the fag end of service on 28-
10-2019 ie. 3 days prior to his date of retirement for correction
of date of birth and the same was not permitted under law,
hence, Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
This respondent denied the fact that petitioner
submitted several representation right from 15-05-1989
onwards and reiterated his request on several occasions duly
enclosing the copies of SSC certificate. It is stated that
petitioner was issued the letter dated 31.12.2012 confirming his
date of birth as per company records as 26 years as on
01.11.1985 and he would retire from the services of the
company on 31.10.2019 which was duly acknowledged by him
and he had not questioned the same and the same became
final. It is also stated that representation submitted by
petitioner dated 21-02-2016 was examined by the respondent
company and the letter dated 18-04-2016 was issued informing
to submit the reasons for not disclosing the facts pertaining to
educational qualifications by producing the SSC certificate at
the time of his initial appointment and for not utilizing the
opportunity given by the management earlier through circular
dated 27-03-1990 for correction of date of birth. Petitioner,
without giving any explanation/reasons to the above said letter
and also without disclosing the above mentioned facts, filed this
Writ Petition and on the other hand, submitted another
representation dated 22-10-2019 for correction of date of birth
and the same was considered and the order dated 07-11-2019 w
was issued. After his retirement, petitioner approached the
corporate office and made representation dated 04-06-2021
which was forwarded to the General Manager, Bhupalpally, it
was informed to the Colliery Manager, KTK OC-III Project vide
letter dated 14-09-2021 and the same was informed to
petitioner vide letter dated 02-07-2021 and 21-09-2021 that no
age disputes which were raised within one year of the due date
of retirement would be entertained as per Circular dated
16-08-2012.
It is further stated that petitioner was issued letters
dated 30-11-2020 and 30-06-2021 to approach the respective
mine authorities for settlement of his terminal benefits,
however, he did not turn up till date. The management is ready
to process and settle all his terminal benefits upon submission
of Application by petitioner.
It is brought to the notice of this Court that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court while disposing Civil Appeal No. 1009 of
2020 held that petitioner's request to change his date of birth at
the fag end of service is not tenable and quashed the order
dated 13.10.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition No. 6172 of 2014 and order dated 19.02.2019 passed
by the Division Bench in LPA No. 115 of 2018 of High Court of
Karnataka. Hence the above Writ Petition filed by petitioner is
not maintainable under law and the same liable to be
dismissed.
3. Heard Sri M.P.K. Aditya, learned counsel for
petitioner. He reiterated the contentions raised in the writ
affidavit and in support of his case, relied on the judgments of
this Court in Writ Petition No. 17293 of 2007 and a Division
Bench in Writ Appeal No. 1140 of 2018.
4. Ms. A. Bhavani, counsel representing Sri
P. Sriharsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents
submits that three days prior to his date of retirement,
petitioner approached this Court and at the fag end of service,
he cannot seek to alter his date of birth
5. As is evident from the material on record, it is
evident that at the time of his initial appointment, petitioner did
not submit any proof pertaining to his age/date of birth. As per
the rules of the respondent company, he was referred to Colliery
Medical Officer who assessed the age as 26 years as on
01-11-1985 and accordingly, date of birth was recorded as
01-11-1959 in the Initial Medical Examination Report (Form-O)
and the same was accepted by petitioner by putting his thumb
impression; accordingly, the same was recorded in Service Book
and other statutory records. He retired from service on attaining
age of superannuation on 01-11-2019. Petitioner was issued the
letter on 31.12.2012 confirming his date of birth as per
company records as 26 years as on 01-11-1985 and that he
would retire from service on 31-10-2019 but he had not
questioned the same and the same became final. Further, on
the representation submitted by petitioner dated 21-02-2016,
respondent company issued letter dated 18-04-2016 informing
him to submit the reasons for not disclosing the facts pertaining
to educational qualifications by producing the SSC certificate at
the time of his initial appointment and for not utilizing the
opportunity given by the management earlier through Circular
dated 27-03-1990 for correction of date of birth. Petitioner,
without giving any explanation/reasons to the above said letter
and also without disclosing the above mentioned facts, filed this
Writ Petition and on the other hand, submitted another
representation dated 22-10-2019 for correction of date of birth
and the same was considered and order dated 07.11.2019 was
issued. After retirement also, on petitioner's representation
dated 04-06-2021, he was informed vide letters dated
02-07-2021 and 21.09.2021 that no age dispute raised within
one year of due date of retirement would be entertained as per
Circular dated 16-08-2012.
6. Petitioner, admittedly, joined service of the
respondent Company in 1983. Though he contends that he
submitted representation for correction of date of birth on
15-05-1989, he did not place the same on record.
Subsequently, as is evident from the annexures, petitioner
submitted representations on 16.10.2012 and again on
07.04.2016, ie. nearly after 25 years of his induction into
service, which, by no standards, can be held to be reasonable,
as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas 1. Further, when petitioner had
opportunity to rectify at the time of IME, he did not avail the
same and he put his thumb impression acknowledging the date
of birth mentioned therein, hence, just prior to his retirement,
filing representation seeking change in the date of birth, cannot
be entertained at the fag end of service after accepting the same
to be correct during entire service, as has been held in Bharat
Coking Coal Limited v. Shyam Kishore Singh 2.
7. Here, it is pertinent to note that law on this aspect
is no more res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd.'s case
(supra), held the law on change of date of birth 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.'
8. In the light of the law declared on the subject, as
stated supra, the judgments relied on by learned counsel for
(2011) 9 SCC 664
(2020) 3 SCC 411
petitioner cannot be looked into. Therefore, in the absence of
any proof to show that petitioner produced relevant documents
in proof of his age at the time of his initial appointment and
since he approached this Court on the verge of retirement, this
Court is of the considered opinion that Writ Petition is liable to
be dismissed.
9. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No
costs.
10. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any
shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
25th May 2025
ksld
