Dismissed

Dindayal v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC13 Aug 2024WPS/153/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a writ petition seeking correction of the petitioner's date of birth from 1942 to 1957 and payment of salary arrears. The Court held that the application made at the fag end of service was barred by delay and laches, distinguishing the case from precedents where objections were raised earlier.

What did the court decide?

Petition for correction of date of birth, quashing of retirement order, and payment of arrears was dismissed with no costs.

Dindayal Vs South Eastern Coalfields… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 9

2024:CGHC:30756

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 153 of 2015

¶6

Dindayal S/o Mahadeo Prasad Aged About 57 Years Working As Electrician Category Iv, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Bagdewa Project Colliery, Korba Area, Civil And Rev. Distt. Korba C.G. , Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited And Ors. Through The Chairman Cum Managing Director, Secl Bhawan, Seepat Road, Bilaspur C.G. , Chhattisgarh

¶10

2. Chief General Manager South Eastern Colafiled Ltd, Korba Area, Civil and Revenue District Korba (Chhattisgarh)

¶11

3. Chief General Manager P And A South Eastern Colafiled Ltd, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Civil And Rev. Distt. Bilaspur C.G.

¶12

4. Project Office South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Bagdewa Project, Korba Area, Korba, Civil And Rev. Distt. Korba C.G.

¶13

5. Chief Manager M/sam South Eastern Coal Field Ltd Dhelwadih Singhali Bagdewa, Sub Area, Korba, Civil And Rev. Distt. Korba C.G.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava and Ms. Palak Singh, AdvocateS.

¶16

For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate.

¶17

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶18

Judgment On Board

¶19

14/08/2024

¶20

(1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

¶21

10.1 That the respondent may kindly be commanded by a writ of mandamus to forthwith produce the entire record of the petitioner's service for perusal before this Hon'ble Court.

¶22

2 / 9

¶23

10.2 That respondents be commanded by a writ of certiorari to forthwith quash the impugned order (Annexure-P/29) dated 27-12-2014 by which petitioner has been retired 2.5 years before actual date of his retirement dated 16.07.2017 because impugned order is bad, arbitrary and against the law.

¶24

10.3 That respondent be commanded by a writ of certiorari to forthwith correct the petitioner's date of birth and father's name in the service sheet as17.07.1957 and Mahadeo Prasad respectively with immediate effect.

¶25

10.4 That, Respondent be commanded by a Writ of mandamus to forthwith a pay the arrears amount of salary since the Month on June 2014 to the petitioner, which has not been paid to him without any sufficient reason.

¶26

10.5 That any other relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted in favour of the petitioner with costs of the petition.

¶27

(2) Facts of the present case are that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Badli Worker (General Mazdoor) on 11.12.1975 showing himself as an illiterate person and he was posted as Surakachhar Colliery under the respondents. In the statutory Form B, his date of birth was recorded as 15.04.1972 and the name of the petitioner’s father was recorded as Mukha Prasad. The entries regarding the date of birth and the name of the father remained in the Form-B till 1995. In 1995, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Foreman and his services were also transferred from Surakachhar Colliery to Bagdewa Project, Korba and statutory Form B was filed up and for the first time, the petitioner raised an objection that his correct date of birth is 17.07.1957. In the year 1996, the Age Determination Committee took a decision and found that his correct date of birth was 15.04.1942. Retirement notice was served upon the petitioner by the respondent

¶28

3 / 9

¶29

authorities on 19.12.2001 wherein the date of retirement of the petitioner was disclosed as 30.04.2002. The petitioner filed W.P.S. No. 2463/2001 seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to take steps regarding the correction of date of birth pursuant to the mark sheet of Class 10th. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 01.05.2002 directing the respondents therein to get the petitioner examined by the Apex Medical Board and till then the petitioner was allowed to remain in service. The petitioner appeared before the Apex Medical Board and its report was submitted on 12.02.2002 wherein the age of the petitioner was found about 45 years (as on 12.02.2002). By virtue of the interim order operating in favour of the petitioner, he continued to work till 2014. In the month of June, 2014 the respondent authorities stopped making payments of salary to the petitioner and notice was also issued to him on 27.12.2014 mentioning the date of retirement as 31.12.2014. The petitioner has filed his petition against the notice dated 27.12.2014 claiming that according to his correct date of birth, he will be retiring on 16.02.2017.

¶30

(3) Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 17.07.1957. They further submitted that the petitioner joined services under the respondents in the year 1975 and at that time, though mark sheets were not placed before the authorities and the date of birth was not disclosed by the petitioner himself, the respondent authorities on their own recorded incorrect date of birth of the petitioner. They also submitted that in the year 1987, the petitioner came to know about the fact that his date of birth was recorded as 15.04.1942 in Form B and an objection was raised. They argued that in the year 1995, an application was moved

¶31

4 / 9

¶32

much before the date of retirement for correction of the date of birth from 15.04.1942 to 17.07.1957. It is further argued that pursuant to the order passed in W.P.S. No. 2463/2001, the petitioner was examined by the Apex Medical Board and his age was found to be 45 years on 12.02.2002 and the respondent authorities have not respected the report submitted by the department itself. They also argued that the decision taken by the respondent authorities including the report of the Age Determination Committee is erroneous and liable to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled to get monetary benefits from 01.01.2015 till 17.07.2017. It is contended that according to Implementation Instruction No. 76, the authorities ought to have recorded the correct date of birth of the petitioner i.e. 17.07.1957 on the basis of the mark sheet of high school or higher secondary which was placed before the respondent authorities. It is further contended that the report submitted by the Age Determination Committee is erroneous and contrary to the provisions mentioned in Implementation Instruction No. 76. Ms. Palak Singh placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Sayyad Yasin Versus South eastern Coalfields Limited & Ors., W.A. No. 564/2019 wherein it is held that there is no specific time prescribed for making an application for correction of date of birth, but it should be within a reasonable time. Relevant paras of the aforementioned judgment are reproduced herein

¶33

below:-

¶34

24. There is no specific time prescribed for making an application for correction of date of bith, but it should be within reasonable time. What will be the reasonable time, if not specifically proved, can be taken from the date when it comes to the knowledge. In this case, appellant within a month of knowledge submitted his application for correction and that date is about 28 years before the date of superannuation as per recorded date of birth.

¶35

25 . in view of above facts, in opinion of this Court we do

¶36

5 / 9

¶37

not find that the application is highly belated or has been filed at the fag end of his service, more so, when the respondent had not mentioned as to on what basis the date of birth of appellant was recorded in service book at the time of appointment.

¶38

(4) On the other hand, Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents/SECL opposes. He submits that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1975 and at that time, he declared himself illiterate and his date of birth was 15.04.1942. He further submits that till 1995, no objection was raised by the petitioner regarding the date of birth and only when he was promoted to the post of Assistant Foreman, the petitioner, for the first time raised an objection to this effect based on his high school mark sheet. He also submits that even in the year 1997, the petitioner himself certified his date of birth to be 15.04.1942 and he put his signature on Form B and at the fag end of his service, when notice regarding retirement was served upon him, such objection was raised and application so moved by him to correct the date of birth was not permissible under the law. It is argued that the decision taken by the Apex Medical Board was not taken in accordance with Implementation Instruction No. 76 and the decision rendered by the Age Determination Committee would be binding upon the Apex Medical Board, the petitioner as well as respondents. It is further argued that the Apex Medical Board has given a finding that in the year 2002, the age of the petitioner was 59 as per the ossification test and the petitioner has not challenged the decision taken by the Age Determination Committee dated 19.12.2014. He also argued that the petitioner was about to retire on 15.04.2002 but continued to work till 31.12.2014 and he has already enjoyed salary and other attached benefits for that period, therefore no case is made

¶39

6 / 9

¶40

out for interference. He states that this petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶41

(5) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record with utmost circumspection.

¶42

(6) Undisputedly, relevant facts essential for the disposal of this case are

¶43

that:-

¶44

(a) Petitioner was appointed to the post of Badli Worker (General Mazdoor) on 11.12.1975.

¶45

(b) In statutory Form B, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 15.04.1942.

¶46

(c) In the year 1997, the petitioner himself certified his date of birth as 15.04.1942 and put his signature in Form B confirming the same.

¶47

(d) Notice was served with regard to retirement upon the petitioner in the year 2001 and at that time, the application for correction of date of birth was moved before the respondent authorities.

¶48

(e) No action was taken by the respondent authorities, therefore, W.P.S. No. 2463/2001 was preferred by the petitioner and direction was issued to the respondent authorities to get the petitioner examined by the Apex Medical Board.

¶49

(f) Apex Medical Board found the age of the petitioner to be 45 years on 12.02.2002; following which the petitioner worked till 31.12.2014 by virtue of the report submitted by Apex Medical Board.

¶50

(g) Age Determination Committee recorded a finding to the effect that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 15.04.1942 and notice regarding retirement was issued to the petitioner on 27.12.2014 wherein the date of retirement was mentioned as 31.12.2014 on the basis of the decision taken by Age Determination Committee dated 19.12.2014.

¶51

(7) From a perusal of the documents and material available on record, it is quite vivid that for the first time, in the year 2001, after receipt of notice

¶52

7 / 9

¶53

regarding retirement, the petitioner made a representation for correction of date of birth but when no action was taken, he filed W.P.S. No. 2463/2001 which was disposed of directing the Apex Medical Board to examine the age of the petitioner. As per the report of Apex Medical Board, the petitioner was found aged about 45 years on 12.02.2002, therefore he was permitted to continue working till 31.12.2014. In the year 2014, the Age Determination Committee recorded a finding that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 15.04.1942 but the report given by the Apex Medical Board was respected and the petitioner continued to remain in service till 31.12.2014.

¶54

(8) In the matter of Sayyad Yasin (supra), the Hon’ble Division found that an application for correction of date of birth was moved at the fag end of service, therefore the same was considered and the order passed by the learned single Judge was set aside but in the instant case, in the year 2001, after receipt of notice of retirement, the petitioner moved an application and also filed a petition. Thus, the facts of the present case are different from the facts of Sayyad Yasin (supra).

¶55

(9) In the matter of Jai Prakash Singh Versus South Eastern Coalfields & Ors., WA No. 480 of 2023 dated 14.03.2024 , the Hon’ble Division Bench has held that “There is no doubt that the Employer can take recourse of correction of date of birth of any of its Employees, but he should be in possession of satisfactorily, admissible and irrefutable piece of evidence with him.” The relevant paras 28, 29, & 30 read thus:-

¶56

“ 28. There is no doubt that the Employer can take recourse of correction of date of birth of any of its Employees, but he should be in possession of satisfactorily, admissible and irrefutable piece of evidence with him, particularly, when the Employer wants to correct

¶57

8 / 9

¶58

date of birth recorded by one of its Employees, in service record of any other Employee at the time of entering into the service of that particular Employee.

¶59

29. In the instant case, it is the employer who suspected the date of birth recorded in service record. The employee is having matriculation certificate with same date of birth as recorded in service record, i.e., 01.07.1959. The certificate is not questioned by the respondent-employer which is one of the documents as mentioned in Implementation Instruction No.76 to be authentic document for ascertaining the age .

¶60

30. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-employee relying on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited Vs. T.P. Nataraja & others (supra) by holding that at the fag end of his career the petitioner/appellant has challenged the date of birth and considering the nature of dispute the writ petition has been dismissed. Facts of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure case (supra) are on different footing than the facts of the present case. In the present case from the year 1976 till 2000, the date of birth of the appellant-employee was mentioned in his service record as 01.07.1959 and only on the basis of a letter issued by the Ministry of Coal, Government of India dated 01.02.1999, they have altered the date of birth of the appellant-employee unilaterally as 28.02.1958 vide order dated 12.05.2000. It is not a case that the appellantemployee has challenged his date of birth in the fag end of his service career. But it is a case where the Respondent/employer has unilaterally altered his date of birth after 24 years of his service and the petitioner/employee wants to correct in its original position for which he is having matriculation certificate. ”

¶61

(10) In the matter of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development

¶62

Limited Versus T. P. Nataraja & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 5720 of 2021,

¶63

the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of date of birth

¶64

in para 10 held as under:-

¶65

“10. Considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court the law on change of date of birth can be summarized as under:

¶66

(i) application for change of date of birth can only be as per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable;

¶67

(ii) even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right;

¶68

(iii) application can be rejected on the ground of delay and latches also more particularly when it is made at the fag

¶69

9 / 9

¶70

end of service and/or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation. ”

¶71

(11) The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the matter of South

¶72

Eastern Coalfields Limited & Ors Versus Ikramuddin, WA No. 384 of 2021 relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matter of T. P. Nataraja (supra) in para-14 held as under:-

¶73

“14. Therefore, applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, the representation made by the writ petitioner seeking change of his date of birth or to refer his case to the Age Determination Committee was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches also and as such the respondent/writ petitioner was not entitled for any relief. The order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be and is accordingly set aside .”

¶74

(12) In the present petition, the petitioner has not challenged the report submitted by the Age Determination Committee dated 19.12.2014 and furthermore, the application for correction of date of birth was moved at the fag end of service and till 2001, no objection was raised by the petitioner and even thereafter, he enjoyed the fruits of service till 2014.

¶75

(13) Considering the above-stated facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Division Bench of this Court, no case is made out for grant of any relief.

¶76

(14) Consequently, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).

¶77

Sd/-

¶78

Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE

¶79

Ajinkya

Dindayal v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dindayal v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamlesh Verma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

R.R. Dubey Vs Cg State Power Holding Co.Ltd. and Ors.

Smt. Anita Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Basant Pandey Vs Coal India Limited and Ors.

Santlal Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

C.P. Dewangan Vs Guru Ghasidas Central University