Shayam Lal Das Vs the Director (Personnel), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad

¶1

2026:JHHC:3881

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 890 of 2026

¶3

¶4

Shyam Lal Das, son of Kitiya Das, resident of Jhagrahi, P.O Jhagrahi, P.S. Barora, District- Dhanbad. .. Petitioner(s)

¶5

.. Petitioner(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. The Director (Personnel), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad, office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O and P.S. Koyla Nagar, District- Dhanbad.

¶8

2. The General Manager, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad, office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O and P.S. Koyla Nagar, District- Dhanbad.

¶9

3. The Project Officer, ABG Colliery, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad, P.O- Sonardih, P.S. Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad. ...Respondent(s)

¶10

¶11

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶12

¶13

For the petitioner(s): M/s Anuj Kumar Trivedi, Amitesh Kr. Geasen and Rohit Kr. Gupta, Advocate For the BCCL Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Advocate.

¶14

02/12.02.2026: Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

The issue involved in this case is in respect of date of birth. The petitioner claims that his date of birth is 05.06.1971 as per the matriculation certificate, but the respondents had wrongly entered the date of birth of the petitioner as 27.11.1966, which needs to be corrected.

¶16

Learned counsel argues that when there is a Matriculation Certificate which records the correct date of birth of the petitioner as 05.06.1971, the respondents could not have relied upon the medical assessment, which is only mere assumption and presumption. The Matriculation Certificate, which is of impeccable character should be a conclusive proof to record the date of birth and not any other documents.

¶17

Learned counsel representing the respondent- BCCL submits that the petitioner was appointed on 18.12.1986. From the period 05.12.1987 to 01.06.1988, the petitioner was kept out of service, thereafter he joined. It is his contention that at the time of entry in service, no Matriculation Certificate or any documents to prove the date of birth was provided by the petitioner, thus, the petitioner was medically examined and his age was assessed as 20 years on 27.11.1986, thus his date of birth comes to 27.11.1966. He submits that all the statutory documents i.e. Form-B, application and others were duly filled up which contain the aforesaid date of

¶18

Page No. 1

¶19

2026:JHHC:3881

¶20

birth i.e. 27.11.1966. He also argues that the Matriculation Certificate cannot be relied upon as because the same was obtained after the petitioner joined service. The Matriculation Certificate is dated 24.08.1988, thus the date of birth mentioned therein cannot be relied upon, as the same can be manipulated.

¶21

From the arguments of the parties, I find that admittedly the petitioner was appointed on 18.12.1986. At the time of appointment, the petitioner was non- matriculate, as admittedly according to the petitioner, he passed matriculation on 24.08.1988 i.e. after he joined service.

¶22

Since there was no Matriculation Certificate and there was no other document in support of the date of birth, the petitioner was subjected to medical examination, wherein on 27.11.1986, his age was roughly assessed as 20 years. Considering the said assessment, his date of birth was recorded as 27.11.1966.

¶23

After the petitioner obtained the matriculation, he started raising a dispute that his date of birth should be recorded as 05.06.1971, which is mentioned in the Matriculation Certificate. The petitioner raised the dispute after 30 years of his appointment.

¶24

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited vs. T.P. Nataraja and Others , reported in (2021) 12 SCC 27 at paragraph no.11 has summarised the law regarding change of date of birth which is quoted herein under:-

¶25

11.Considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court the law on change of date of birth can be summarised as under:

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

(iii) application can be rejected on the ground of delay and laches also more particularly when it is made at he fag-end of service and/or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation.

¶29

In my opinion, the change of date of birth cannot be permitted at the fag-end of service career, when there is delay and latches on the part of the petitioner itself. In this case, this application has been filed at the fag end of his service.

¶30

Page No. 2

¶31

2026:JHHC:3881

¶32

Further, the age recorded in the Matriculation Certificate cannot be considered in this case because the Matriculation Certificate of the petitioner was obtained after the petitioner entered in service.

¶33

Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in terms of Section 40 of the Mines Act, 1952, as amended by the Amendment, which came into force with effect from 31.5.1984, no person below the age of 18 years can be allowed to work in any mine or any part thereof. Admittedly, the petitioner was working in mines. Now if the date of birth, which the petitioner claims is considered i.e. 05.06.1971 his age will be much less than 18 years, which would not have made him eligible to be appointed, as per law.

¶34

Be it noted that when the petitioner was medically examined, he was found to be 20 years old and considering the fact that the petitioner was aged more than 18 years at the time of seeking appointment, the respondents have employed him, otherwise he would not have been employed.

¶35

Considering what has been held above, the matriculation certificate of the petitioner so far as date of birth is concerned, will have no effect in the instant case. Therefore, the date of birth of the petitioner cannot be corrected in accordance with the date of birth mentioned in the Matriculation Certificate.

¶36

14 Thus, I find no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶37

Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶38

12^th February, 2026 Anu-Cp2. Uploaded on: 17/02/2026

¶39

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶40

Page No. 3

Shayam Lal Das v. the Director (Personnel), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shayam Lal Das v. the Director (Personnel), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad

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

Tej Narayan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Umesh Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dinesh Mathur Vs the Union of India through Home Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs

Vicky Raj Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Dept. of School Education and Literacy Development

Ratneshwar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deepanjali Amrita Toppo Vs the State of Jharkhand