The High Court dismissed the appellants' writ appeal where the Single Judge directed the employer to re-induct a driver and restore service benefits based on a date of birth recorded in service records from 1984, noting the notice to terminate was issued without notice to the employee.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF TVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
WRIT APPEAL NO: 23 OF 2020
Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal Preferred against the Order Dated 1711012019 passed in W.P.No.19645 ol 2018 on the file of the High Court. Between:
...Appellants/Res pondents 1 & 2
AND
lVlanchala Anjaiah, S/o. I\rl.Narsaiah, aged about 57years, EC No.4025141, M.V.Driver, PK.OC-IV, [t4/s Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd., Manuguru, Bhadhradri Kothagudem. District - 507 117.
...RespondenUPetitioner
lA NO: 2 OF 2020
Petition under Section'1 51 CPCpraying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Courtmay be pleasedto dispense with the filing of original copy of the order in WP.No.19645/2018,dated 17 t10t2019.
lA NO: 3 OF 2020
Petition under Section'1 51 CPCpraying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Courtmay bepleasedto suspend the Order daled 1711012019passed inWP.No.1964512018,pending disposal of this Writ Appeal.
Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. J. SREENIVASARAO,
SC FOR SINGARENI COLLIERIES
Counsel for the Respondents: SRIVISHWANATH MANOJ
The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
)
JUDGMENT: (Pc. th€ Hon'bl. the ChiefJu.ticG 6rl R:ghverdr. SiDgh Chauh.nl
The Singareni Collieries Company Limited ("the appellants', for short) has chailenged the legality of the order, dated 1 7. lO .2OI9 , passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.19645 of 2O18, whereby the Iearned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition, wherein the petitioner had challenged a letter dated 19.09.20 1 7, wfrerebl, he was informed by the appellants that he was required to retire from the service on 0i.10.2018.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 10.04.1984, the petitioner was recruited as a General Mazdoor. In 1999, he was promoted as a Motor Vehicle Driver. While joining the company in 1984, since the petitioner did not produce any document revealing his date of birth, he was subjected to a medical examination. According to the medical doctors, he was said to be approximately twenty-five years old. Hence, his date of birth u,as recorded in his service record as "18.05.1961". The said date of birth was alscr recorded in the Statutory Register of Emplovees (Form-B) under Rule 48(3), 51 and 77 of the Mines Rules, 1955, and in the Nomination Forms of Coal Mines Family Provident Fund. Even in his service book, as per the pass certificate for the VIII class common examination held in the year 1975-76, issued by the Headmaster, Zilla Parishad Secondary School, Pandella Palli, his date of birth u,as indicated as 18.O5.1961. However, at the fag end of his service, by letter dated 19.O9 .2017 , the appellants informed the petitioner that, in fact, the company takes his date of birth as "27.09.1958", instead of"18.05.1961". Therefore, he was due to retire on O1.10.2018.
Aggrieved by the said ietter, the petitioner challenged the same before this Court. As mentioned hereinabove, the learned Single Judge has set aside the said ietter, and directed the appellants to
....,.
l,: r ;, -.; .,; -.;_i;,
re-induct the petitioner into service by considering his date of birth AS "18.05. I961,, and to continue the petrt.ioner in service with all consequential benefits till he reaches his actua.l age of superannuation. Hence, this appeal before this Court.
Mr. J. Sreenivasa Rao, the learned Standing Counsel, has vehemently contended that the appellants were justified in changing the date of birth of the petitioner, as in the initial recruitment, he did not file any documentary proof of his date of birth. Therefore, the learned Single Judge is unjustilied in setting aside the impugned letter dated 19.O9.2Ot7 .
On the other hand, Mr. Vishwanath Manoj, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that if the principle that at the fag end, the employee is not justified in seeking change of his date of birth, is applicable to an employee, it is equally applicable to an employer. Moreover, in the present case, the petitioner's date of birth was suddenly changed without any prior notice to him. Therefore, the rights of the petitioner, under the principles of natural justice, had been violated. Hence, the learned Single Judge is justihed in setting aside the impugned letter dated 19 .O9 .2017 . Thus, the learned counsel has supported the impugned order.
In rejoinder, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants submits that atleast the monetary benefit, to which the petitioner would be entitled to, should be denied to him, even if he were to be re-inducted into service.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned order.
Admittedly, the petitioner could not produce any documents, revealing his actual date of birth. However, after due medical examination, his date of birth was recorded in the service record as
HCJ&4AR,) B'.t.lo:3of 2t))t)
.+
"18.O5.1961". Asmentioned hereinabove,the said date of birth had repeatedly beenquotedin the other servicedocuments'
It is, indeed, trite to state thata date of birth cannotbe changed, without giving any noticeto the concernedemployee' Undoubtedly, in the present case, the date ofbirth had been changed by the appellants without giving any notice to thepetitioner. Therefore, obviously, the impugned letter, dated 19.O9.2017, was in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the learned Single Judge is justified in setting aside the impugned letter, dated 19.O9.2017 , and in allowing the writ petition.
Even the other prayer made by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants is ciearly untenable. For, once the petitioner is re-inducted into service, he has to be paid the arrears of his salary, and be given all the monetary benefits which he will be entitled to till the date of his actual retirement. Even after retirement, he would be entitled to the retiral benefits.
The appellants are directed to re-induct the petitioner into service, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ appeal; it is, hereby, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/- M SHANTHI VARDHANI JO TRAR //TRUE COPY/i
SECTION FFICER
To,
3 One CC to Sri. J. Sreenivasa Rao, SC for Singareni Collieries IOPUC] 4 One CC to Sri Vishwanath Manoj Advocate IOPUC] 5 Two CD Copies CHR A"')-
HIGH COURT HC,J & AAR,J DATED:0610312020
JUDGMENT
1 ti(- TA 14,
cr
o 2 I I r fl 2C20
fz
t()
\ a
W.A.No.23 of 2020
DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS
, -3)/ ' ,tcoittet> )urr-\q,-*
\
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a date of birth recorded in service records without documentary proof can be unilaterally altered by the employer without notice.
Whether the High Court correctly set aside a notice terminating retirement age due to alleged inaccurate date of birth without following natural justice.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.
M.V. Driver
Raghavendra Singh Chauhan
A. Abhishek Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
