Dismissed

M. Rajaiah, v. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Chairman and Md.,Hyd. AND3 Ot

Telangana HC27 Sept 2023WP/9875/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a former employee of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd challenging the alteration of his date of birth. Relying on a prior judgment (W.P. No.35819 of 2015) and Supreme Court precedents, the court held that applications for correction of date of birth made at the fag-end of service are not maintainable.

What the court decided

AI extract

M. Rajaiah, Vs Singareni Collieries… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE^{TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK}

¶6

WRIT PETITION^{NO : 9875 OF 2014}

¶7

Between

¶8

M. RAJAIAH, S/o.^{Kistaiah,(E.C.No.26622549)} .lSeO^5! Yeall dcc : Support men,^{Rl/o.H'No.14-110, R.K-6,Huts' Near Hanumanlemple' sn} Rampur, Adilabad^District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

SINGARENI^{COLLIERIES COMPANYLTD, CHAIRMANRep' bv its} Cnuitrjn^js Managing^{Director, CorporateOffice, Hyderabad'}

¶12

The Director^{(Personal 86 Administration),, The singarenicollieries company} Limited. Kothagudem,Khammam^District'

¶13

3.TheGeneralManager,,sriRampurArea,TheSingareniCollieriesCompany Limited. Sri Rampur,^{Adilabad District.}

¶14

' The Collieries^{Manager,'R.K.6.lncline,SriRampur Area' The Singareni} Coitierles Company^{Ltd, Sri RampurAdilabad District'}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybe pleased to issue a writ order^{or Direction more particularly one in the nature of} writ of Mandamus^{declaring the action the action of respondents in alterationof} age/date of birth^{of petitioner as 06.04.'1954 insteadof 26 years as on 27.06.1986} the date of^{appointmentthereby seeking to retire from serviceon 30.04.2014} through undated Notice^{of retirement,without issuingone yearAdvance Noticeas} requiredundertheAgeDisputesandRetirementRulesofrespondentCompany' withaviewtodeprivethecontinuityofserviceuptoJune,2020,toretireatan earlydateaSillegal,Arbitrary,contrarytotheprocedureestablishedunderLaw, MinesActandRules,unconstitutionalviolativeofArticlel4,lg(1Xg)ofthe

¶17

/ constitution^{of lndia consequenfly directthe respondents duly follow the correct} age as 26^{years recordedat the time of joining into service as on 27'06'1986'}

¶18

t.A. NO:^{1 0F 201} WPMP^{. NO:12373oF 2014}

¶19

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC praying thatin the circumstances stated in} the affidavit^{firedin supportof the petition,the High court may be preased to direct} theRespondentstocontinuethepetitionerinservicetill30.06.2020bysuspending theoperationoftheproposedretirementscheduledtobeheldon30.04.2014as per the un date^{Notice issuedto the petitioner pendingdisposal of the abovewrit} petition.

¶20

Counsel^{for the Petitioner: SRI' SRINIVASA RAO PUTLURI}

¶21

Counsel^{for the Respondents:SRI NANDIGAM KRISHNARAO}

¶22

The Court^{made the following: ORDER}

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^PULLAKARTHIK

¶24

WRIT PETITION No^{.9875of 2OL4}

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard Sri Putluri Srinivasa^{Rao, learned counsel for the} petitioner, and Sri^{Nandigam KrishnaRao, learned counselfor the} respondents.

¶27

2\ This Writ Petition is^{filed by the petitioner-employee seeking to} declare the action^{of the respondentsin altering the date of birth of} the petitioner as^{06.04.1954 insteadof 26 years as on the date of} appointment^{t.e. on 27.06.1986as iilegaland arbitrary'}

¶28

When the matter^is taken^{up for hearing, the learned Standing} counsel appearing^{for the respondents has submittedthat similar} issue came up for consideration^{before this courtin w.P.No.35819 of} 2015 and this court^{after extensivelydealingwith the matter has} dismissed the writ^{petitionuide order dated24} '08'2023^{by passinga} detailed order. The^{lis in the present writ petitionis squarelycovered} by the said adjudication^{of this Court.}

¶29

4l The above said^{submission is not seriously disputed by the} learned counsel for the^petitioner.

¶30

5)Inviewoftheaboveandforthereasonsalikeintheorderdated 24.08.2023^{passedby this Court in W'P' No35819 of 2015, the}

¶31

¶32

present Writ Petition is also liable to be dismissed^{and is accordingly}

¶33

dismissed

¶34

Miscellaneous petitions^pending, if any,^{shall stand closed.No}

¶35

costs

¶36

SD/- MOHD. SANAULLAH^ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// Af , SECTIOrfC'FFICER

¶37

To,

¶38

One CC to SRl. SRINIVASA^{RAO PUTLURI, Advocate.[OPUC]}

¶39

One CC to SRl.^{NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO, Advocate lOPUCl}

¶40

Two CD CoPies

¶41

¶42

GJP

¶43

(along with a order copy dated^{24.08.2023in W.P.No'35819 of 2015)}

{ V

HIGH COURT

DATED:2710912023

ORDER

WP.No.9875 of 2014

(r yrE SI11a.
o
oiJt 03 ilol,?lm Ioz
.r+
t A
oE P t\1lo

¶51

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶52

-\ %o

¶53

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE^{PULLA KARTHIK}

¶54

WRIT PETITION No.35819 of 2015

¶55

ORDER:

¶56

This Writ Petition is filed to^{declare the action of the} respondents in issuing^{proceedingsd'ated'14.O7 .20 15 confirming} the age of the^{petitioner as} '60'years^{as on 14.O7.2O15by tleating} the date of birth of the^petitioner as^{14.07.1955instead of} 12.1O.1959, as illegal and^arbitrary.

¶57

2l The case of the^petitioner,' in^{brief, is that he was initially} appointed on 04.O4.198d^{as Worker Trairieein GDK 8A Incline,} Godavarikhani and^{subsequently he was promotedas General} Mazdoor and transferred^{to GDK OCP III in RG-II on 03.12.1990} and since then he^{was discharginghis duties tillthe date of} retirement basing on^{the wrong entry of his date of birth in the} service records. It is further^{averred that at the time of his} appointment, his date^{of birthwas recordedas 12.10.1959 by the} respondent Organization, based^{on VIII Class Transfer Certificate'} While so, he received reliable^{information from the oflicestall of the} respondent Organization^{that his dateof birthwas alteredwithout} his knowledge and without^{issuing any notice to him. On coming} to know the same, he^{made a representationon 14.12.2013 to} respondent No.2 seeking correction^{of his date of birth in his} sergice records. On^{receipt of the said representation, the second}

¶58

)

¶59

respondent uide letter dated 17.O1.2O15,^while enclosing^{a copy of} the proceedings dated 25.06.2009, stated that already the date^of birth of the petitioner was ltxed as O4.O4.1955. Basing on the said wrong date of birth, he was forced to retire from services depriving him of four years of precious service. Immediately, the^petitioner has approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P. No.22842 of 2O\4 questioning tlte proceedings dated 25.06.2009 and this Court disposed of the batch of Writ Petitions trled by the petrtioner and also other similarly situated^personsuide common order dated 31.03.2015 subjecting the^{petitionersto} medical examination and also prescribed certain^guidelines to^the respondents for undertaking the process of such medical examination. Pursuant to the said common order dated 31.03.20 15 passed in W.P. No.22842 of 2Ol4 & batch, the respondents got conducted medica,l examination of the^petitioner on O3.O7.2O15 and he also appeared before the Apex Medical Board on 14.07 .2075 where he was examined contrary to the direction of this Court issued in W.P. No.22842 of 2Ol4 & batch to examine the petitioners scientifically. The Apex Medical Board, without considering the documents produced by the petitioner, confirmed the age of the petitioner as '60'years as on 14.07.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶60

¶61

Since Sri Venkateshwar^{Varanasi,learned counsel,who filed} the Writ Petition has^{expiredand as the matter pertains to the year} 2015, this Court^{requestedSri K. Jagadeeshwar Reddy, learned} counsel, to^{assist this Court,to which the learned counselhas also} agreed ald advanced^{his arguments on behalfofthe petitioner'}

¶62

4l Learned counsel^{for the petitionerhas contendedthat the} Apex Medical Board^{has conductedmedicalexaminationin an eye} wash manner^{and withoutexamining the petitionerscientifrcally'} decided the^{age of the petitioneras 60 years as on l4'O7 '2015} without considering the^{documents producedby the petitioner} before the Board^{and the same is contrary to the procedure} prescribed by this Court^{in W.P. No.22842of 2014 & batch' It is} further contended^{that initiallyin Service recordsof the petitioner,} basing on the^{VIII Classcertificate produced by the petitioner, his} date of birth^{was recorded as 10.12'1955and the sarne was} subsequently altered^{by the respondentsurde orderdated} 25.06.2009^{without issuingaly notice to the petitionerand the} same is illegal^{and arbitrary.lrarnedcounselhas further} contended that^{the respondents failed to considerthe case of the} petitioner in terms^{of the guidelines issuedby the respondents uide} Implementation^{InstructionNo.76 dated 28'12'2002, wherein the} procedure for determination^{of age of an employeehas been}

¶63

¶64

prescribed. Learned counsel has laid much emphasis^{on Clause A}

¶65

(ii) thereof, which reads as under:

¶66

"Non Matriculate^{but educated:}

¶67

In the case of appointees^{who have pursued studiesina} recognized educational institution,^{the dateof birth recordedinthe} School Leaving Certihcate shall^{be treatedas correctdate of birthand} the same will not be altered^{under any circumstances."}

¶68

and contended that the^{impughed proceedingsamount to violation} of their own Instructions^{dated2a.12.2OO2 andtherefore prayedto} allow the present writ Petition.

¶69

Per contra, the learned Standing^{Counselfor the respondent} Company has contended that^{every personwhile enteringinto the} service of the Company shall^{have to declare.his/her dateof birth} by submitting necessary^{proof/record.Drawing the attention of} this Court to Clause A⁽ⁱ⁾ enunciated in^{ImplementationInstruction} No.76 dated 28.12.2002, learned Standing Counsel has^submitted that in case of appointees who have passed Matriculation, the^date of birth recorded in the said Certificate will be recoided in the service records and the same will not be altered in aly circumstances. By relying on Clause A (iv) thereof, the learned iSianaing Counsel submitted that in case of illiterates, the age as ssed by the then Colliery Medical Officer at the time of his tial medic:lt examination shatl be treated as date of birth of the i:'employee and the same will be recorded in the service records ald

¶70

¶71

will not be altered under any circumstalces.^{In the instant case,} since the petitioner did^{not submit any documentaryevidencein} proof of his date of birth, as per Joint^{Bipartite Committeefor Coal} Industry (JBCCI) guideiines,^{his age wasassessedas 25 yearsas} on O4.O4. 198O and the sarne^{was enteredin all the service records} of t]le petitioner. It is further^{contended that in the earlierround} of litigation the^petitioner has filed^{W.P. No.22482of2Ol4} challenging the proceedings^{dated 25.06.2009 and the sarne was} disposed of by this Court^{(a-lo{g with a batch of other writ} petitions) by way of a common.order^{dated 31.03.2015 with a} direction to conduct^{medical examinationto all the petitioners} therein by giving seven^{days notice.In complianceof the said} order, the petitioner was^advised to^{attend before the Panel of} Medical Officers at Main^{Hospital, KGM, on 03.07.2015 and the} Apex Medical Board on 14.O7.2015.^{After examining the petitioner,} the Apex Medical Board^{assessed the age of the petitioner as 6O} years as on 14.07.2015 and confirmed^{the date of birth already} entered in the service records.^{Thus, the learnedStanding Counsel} has contended that the impugrred^{proceedingswere issued in} compliance with the order^{passed by this Court in W.P..No.22842} of 2Ol4 & batch. Learned^{counsel has further contendedthat the} Apex Medical Board consists^{of panel of Doctors comprised of} different specialists, who^{after conducting due examinationof the}

¶72

¶73

petitioner,^{determined the age of the petitioner as 60 years as on} 74.07^{.2015 by examiningthe petrtroner} scientificallY.^Learned that^{pursuantto the} Standing^{Counsel has further contended} interimorderdated03.ll.2ol5passedbythisCourtinW.P'M.P. No.46037^{of 2015, the petitioner was paid all his terminal benefits} i.e. Gratuily^{of Rs'9,95,4O4l-'Rs 33'4O} '7681-^{towatds CMPF} Accumulations,^{Rs 11,039/- towards FBIS besidesRs' 1O' 197/- per} month^{toward s pensionand requested this Court to dismissthe} present^writ Petition'

¶74

This Court^{has taken noteof the submissions made by the}

¶75

1. respective^{parties and perused the record'}

¶76

7\ A perusal^{of the record discloses that at the time of initial} appointment,^{the age of the petitionerwas recordedas O4'04'1955'} by following^{JBCCI guidelines ancl the same was enteredin the} service^{recordsof the Company.Subsequently, the petitionerhas} approached^{this Courtby way of W'P No 22842 of 2014 on the} ground that^{his date of birth was altered withoutissuingany} notice to^{him. This Court has disposed of the said writ petition} a-Iong with a^{batchof other writ petitions' by wayof a common} order dated^{31.03 2015 Relevant obsewations/ directions of the} learned Judge^{while passing the order dated 31'03'2O15are} extracted^{hereunder for betterunderstandingof the matter:}

¶77

¶78

'... altowing the^{petitioners herein to be subjectedto a medical} examination all over^{afreshby the doctorsof the respondent} Company, at the first^{instance, who can complise of Doctors such} as General Physician,^{General Surgeon, OrthopedicSurgeon,} Radiologist, Dentist,^{etcetera,who are be able to determinethe} age of the cand.idate^{brought beforethem. May be, that the age} determination carried out now^{mayvary by few daysor at worst} by few months, to the one claimed^{as truedate of birth.But} when scientifically stuAied, the age of^{the candidate can be} determined with the nearest^possible accuracy.^{Hence, it willbe} appropriate that the Medical^{Oflicer determine the present age of} the employee of the company^{broughtbeforehi. This methodwill} hrst drive away the apprehension^{of the petitionersthat theyare} given a raw deal by the company and secondly^{it will also inspire} necessary confidence in the^{mindof the respective petitioners that} after a^proper examination and^{thoroughevaluation,the} examining doctor has determined^{the age of the candidates} concerned. Thereafter, the^case of^{each candidatecan be} subjected to scrutiny by^{Apex MedicalBoard which might} comprise officers of the^{companyrepresenting the} Personnel^and administration department a-lso^{apartfrom the presence of} appropriate number of Doctors.^{The petitioner cannot objectto} the participation of the^oflicers frdm^{thepersonneland} administrative wings in the Apex^{Medical Board,where} appropriate number^{of Medical Oflicers also will be present,so} that, the Apex Medical^{Board will taken an ultimatedecision in} the case of each of the^{petitioners. By adopting this procedure, a} fair method can be worked out and^{satisfactorilythe controversy} can be resolved. "

¶79

Admittedly, in the above^{referred common order dated} 31.03.2015, the learned Judge^{has extensively dealt with the}

¶80

¶81

Contentionsraisedbythepetitionerstherein,includingthe petitioner herein,^{ald stipulated a detailed procedure for scientihc} assessment^{of the age of the candidates'The petitionerhaving} invited the^{common order dated3 1 03 201 5 from this Courtin} W.P.No.22842of2074&batch,andappearedbeforetheApex Medical^{Boardin terms of the common order dated31'032O15' got} examined.^{by the Apex MediCalBoard scientifically' as evident from} the copy^{of the proceedingsof the Apex MedicalBoard dated} 14.07.2015^{filedalong with the counter determining the age of the} petitioner as^{60 years as on14 O7 2O15' isestopped from} challenging^{the proceedingsdatedl4'O7 2Ol5' Further'in similar} set of facts,^{this Court had dismissed W'P No 735O of 2O16 vide} orderdated12.og.2olg.Further,itisbroughttothenoticeofthis Court by^{the learned Standing Counsel for the respondentsthat'} during^{the pendencyof the writ petition' the petitionerhas retired} from service^{and the terminalbenefits were also paid to him and} his^{pension has been frxedat Rs lO' 197/- per month'}

¶82

In BURN STANDARD^{CO.LTD. AND} OTIIERS^v. the Hon'ble DINABANDHU' MAWMDAR^{AND ANOTHERI,}

¶83

Supreme^{Court at para 1O heldas under}

I {1995) 4 SCC', 172

Entertainment by High Courts of writ applications made by ernployees of tl,e Government or its instrumentalities at the fag end of their seryices and when they are due for retirement from their services, in our view, is unwarralted. It would be so for the reason that no employee can claim a right to correction of birth date and entertainment of such writ applications for correction of dates of birth of some employees of Government or its instrumentatities will mar the chances of promotion of their juniors and prove to be an undue encouragement to the other employees to make similar applications at the fag end of their service careers with the sole object of preventing their retirements when due. ExtraordinarJr nature of the jurisdiction vested in the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution, in our considered view, is not meant to make employees of Government or its instrumentalities to continue in service beyond the period of their entitlement according tg dates of birth accepted by their employers, placing reliance on the so-called newly-found material.

¶88

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary & Commissioner, Home ... vs R. Kirubakaran2, has held that request for rectification of date of birth has to be made at the earliest point of time. The law laid down in Kirubo,karan's (reJerred suprc, has also been followed by the Apex Court in its several other subsequent judgments. Relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kirabakaran's ccse (reJerred. supr@/, are as under:

¶89

2 AIR 1993 SC 2647

¶90

¶91

"An application for correction of^{the date of birth should not be dealt} with by the Tnbunal or the High^{Court kcepingin view only the} pubLc servant concerned. It need not^{be pointed out that anysuch} direction for correction of^{the datc of birth of the public sewart} concerned has a chain reaction,^{inasmuchas otherswaiting for} years, below him for their respective^{promotionsare affectedin this} process. Some are likely to suffer^{irreparableinjury, inasmuch as'} because of *re correction^{of the date of birth, the officer concerned,} continues in ofltcer, in^{some cases for years, withinwhichtime many} officers who are^{below him in senioritywaiting for theirPromotion,} may lose the promotion for^{ever. Casesare not unknown when a} person accepts appointment^{keepingin view the date of retirement of} his immediate^{senior. According to us, this is an importantaspect'} which cannot be tost sight^{of by the Court or the Tribunal while} examining the^{grievanceof a publicservantin respectof correctionof} his date of birth. As such,^{uhlessa clearcase on the basis of} materials which^{can be held to be conclusivein nature,is made out} by the respondent,^{the Court or the Tribunal shouldnot issue a} direction. on lhe basis of^{materials which make such claimonly} plausible. Bef<rre any such direction^{ls lssucd,the court or the} Tribunal must be futly^{satisfied that there has been real injustice to} the person concerned^{and his claim for correctionof date of birth has} been made in^{:rccordalcewith the procedure prescribed,and within} the time fixed by any^{mle or order. If no rule or order has been} framed or made,^{presciibing theperiodwithin which such} application has to^{be filed,tharl such applicationmust be flled} within the time, which^{can be held to be reasonableThe apPlication} has to^produce the^{evidencein support of such claim, whichmay} amount to irrefutable^{proof relatiugto his da[e of birthWhenever} any such^{question arises,the onusin on the aPplicant,to prove} about the *.o.rg r".o.ii.,g^{of his date of birth, in his service book ln} many cases it is a^{part of the strates/ gn the. part of such public} servants to approach the^{Court or thE Tribunal on tieeveof their} retirement,^{questioningthecorrectnessof the entriesin respect of} their dates of birth in^{the service booksBy this process, it has come} to the notice of this^{Court thatin manycases, even if ultimatelytheir}

¶92

¶93

applications are dismissed, by virtue of interim orders, they continue for months, after the date of superannuation. The Court or the Tribunal must, therefore, be slow in granting an interim relief for continuation in service, unless prima facie ewidence of unimpeachable character is produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated, but if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and merely caused injustice to his immediate junior."

¶94

Further, the Hon'lcle Supreme Court in its latest decision in Karnatc,krr Rural Infrastrltcture Deuelopnent Limited. a.

¶95

T.P. Nato;ro;ja3, held as under:

¶96

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

¶97

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

¶98

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

¶99

(iii) application can be rejected on the ground of delay and latches 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."

¶100

l2l In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner has raised objection only in the year 2O 13 and except making a bald statement that he was not put on notice, no other specifrc reasons are forthcoming for the delay on his part. Thus, viewed from any angle, this Court does not frnd any merit in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismis*d.

¶101

3 2021 SCC Online SC 767

¶102

¶103

13)^{In view of the above' the Writ Petition is dismissed'}

¶104

Miscellaneouspetitionspending,ifany,shallstandclosed.

¶105

No costs

¶106

PULLA^KARTHIK'J Date^24-08-2023 sur