Laxmina Devi Vs South Eastern Coal Field Ltd.

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:7002

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 7082 of 2017

¶6

Digitally signed byPAWAN PAWAN KUMAR KUMAR Date:2026.02.10 11:22:48 +0530

¶7

1 - Laxmina Devi Wd/o Late Kapilmuni Yadav, Aged About 59 Years Retd. Ward Aaya, Central Hospital, S E C L , Bishrampur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. R/o Qtr. No. 169, Mines Bishrampur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - South Eastern Coal Field Ltd. Through The Chairman - Cum - Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - The General Manager, S E C L , Bishrampur Area, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - The Senior Manager A P M , Bishrampur Area, S E C L , District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Area Personnel Manager, Bishrampur Area, Post Bishrampur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Singh on behalf of Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

09/02/2026

¶19

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming following

¶20

2

¶21

reliefs :

¶22

10.1. This Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus / certiorari or of like nature to direct the respondents to quash the impugned order dated 20/04/2017 (ANNEXURE-P/1) directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in her service with all consequential benefits.

¶23

10.2. That, alternatively a command/direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to again hold the proper procedure and the actual age of the petitioner may be determined following the guidelines of Implementation Instruction No. 76.

¶24

10.3. Any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper may also be awarded to the Petitioner including the cost of the petition.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed with the respondents in the year 1987. She is an illiterate lady and to the best of her knowledge, her date of birth is 1959. When a notice of her retirement was issued in the year 2015, treating her date of birth as 21.10.1955, she approached this Court by filing WPS No. 2850 of 2015. This Court vide its order dated 15.12.2015 disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to determine the petitioner’s age in accordance with Implementation Instruction No. 76 of the respondents. As the said order was not complied with the petitioner filed Contempt Case No. 317 of 2017 wherein this Court vide order dated 30.06.2017 directed the respondents to comply with the order dated 15.12.2015 passed in WPS No. 2850 of 2015. Learned counsel further submits that thereafter communication Annexure P-1 was issued to the petitioner wherein her date of birth has been recorded as 24.10.1955 which is under challenge in the present petition.

¶26

3

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the service record of the petitioner, her date of birth is recorded as 24.10.1955, and at no point during her service career did the petitioner raise any objection with regard to the said entry. It is contended that the objection has been raised only at the fag end of her career. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in WPS No. 2850 of 2015, an ossification test was conducted. After taking into consideration the ossification/radiological report and other relevant documents available on record, the petitioner’s date of birth was determined to be 24.10.1955, which was duly communicated to her vide Annexure P-1.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶29

There is no dispute as to the fact that the petitioner does not possess any documentary evidence to substantiate her claim regarding her date of birth, as she asserts herself to be illiterate. In the earlier round of litigation, this Court had directed the respondents to comply with Implementation Instruction No. 76. A perusal of Annexure P-1 clearly indicates that a radiological test was conducted, and pursuant thereto, the petitioner’s date of birth was recorded as 24.10.1955 in the service record as well as in Form ‘B’. It appears that the respondents have undertaken a detailed and due exercise for the purpose of ascertaining the petitioner’s date of birth. The law is well settled that a dispute relating to the date of birth entered in the service record cannot be permitted to be raised at the fag end of one’s career. From the record, it is evident that the petitioner initially approached this Court by filing a writ petition in the year 2015, and as per the date of birth recorded in the service record, i.e., 24.10.1955, she was due to retire in that very year. Thus, the petitioner has approached this Court at the fag end of her career. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble and ors, (2010) 14 SCC 423 , Hon’ble Supreme Court referring to its earlier judgments observed that correction of date of birth in

¶30

4

¶31

the service records by an employee at the fag end of his service career must be discouraged by the Court. In its recent decision in the case of The General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & ors. v. Avinash Kumar Tiwari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 124 , Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified the law that the employees cannot wake up from their slumber after a long time and seek alteration of date of birth at the fag end of their career. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to allow this petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Pawan

Laxmina Devi v. South Eastern Coal Field Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmina Devi v. South Eastern Coal Field Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rambhau Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Vs Maheshwar Soni

Ajeet Singh Vs Savitri Davi And Anr.

Monika Sharma Vs Umashankar Sharma

Prakash Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh.

Dhananjay Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh