Telangana High Court
Nallavelli Rajeeru vs The Managing Director, on 28 May, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 26142 OF 2017
O R D E R:
Petitioner claims to have been appointed in respondent - Singareni Collieries Company Limited as a General Mazdoor at KKSA Incline, at Mandamarri on 18.9.1976, and thereafter, was promoted as a Trammer, Munshi Grade-II, Grade-D Supervisor. He worked as Grade-I Munshi from 01.01.2005. The grievance of petitioner is that he came to know that his date of birth was wrongly recorded by respondent authorities at the time of appointment as 10.09.1954 instead of 10.06.1958; he made an Application to the Colliery Manager of K.K 5A Incline (where he worked at that time) for rectification of date of birth as per 7th class transfer certificate No. 3804 which was issued on 18.11.1974 by the Head Master, Z.P. High School, Bachampet, Warangal District; then it was forwarded to General Manager, Mandamarri, who gave a reply dated 03.05.1996 stating that transfer certificate cannot be taken into consideration for correction of date of birth. He filed Writ Petition No. 30218 of 2010 challenging the reply after fourteen years, which was dismissed on ground of delay and latches and that if the Corporation takes any scheme for alteration of date of birth, his case would get attracted.
2
It is stated that pursuant to the notice dated 10.09.2012 issued by the respondents for alteration of date of birth, as per Circular dated 01.08.1988, petitioner made an Application for change of date of birth along with 7th class transfer certificate, but respondents considered the Applications who have 10th class certificates and rejected the 7th class certificate holders. As per Circular dated 01.08.1988, Implementation Instruction 76 A (ii), employees, who are non - matriculates, transfer certificate or leaving certificate is sufficient for date of birth and shall be treated as correct date of birth. However, respondents did not consider 7th class transfer certificate and issued letter dated 12.12.2012 to retire from the company's service with effect from 30.09.2014. In those circumstances, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3218 of 2014, which was disposed of on 01.07.2015 directing respondents to conduct medical test for confirmation of age. Petitioner is stated to have attended medical test on 05.01.2016 and 14.01.2016 but they did not conduct any test as per norms and did not give any report and simply rejected him from service based on his age showing as excess; his request to furnish medical report through RTI Act was not acceded to. Hence, this Writ Petition. 3
2. The General Manager, SRP Area filed counter on behalf of respondents stating that Writ Petition is not maintainable on the ground of latches. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena cases held that disputes regarding change of date of birth cannot be entertained in the fag end of service. It is stated that Petitioner retired from his services with effect from 01.10.2014 and received all terminal benefits. According to this respondent, Implementation Instruction No.76 of the Joint Bipartite Committee for Coal Industry laid down procedure for determination of age/ date of birth at the time of appointment or in respect of existing employees. It is also stated that every person while entering into service shall declare his age/date of birth by submitting valid education and age proof. In case of new appointees who are literates, SSC/Matriculation Certificate or its equivalent examinations is the valid proof. The date of birth as recorded in the said certificate will be adopted without any modification in the service records of the Company and the same cannot be altered under any circumstances. If the new appointee joins as illiterate, the Date of Birth will be determined by the Colliery Medical Officer by conducting necessary examinations and the same will be entered in the service records.
4
It is stated that Petitioner joined Respondent Company as an illiterate and did not submit any valid proof of Date of Birth at the time of his joining, hence, he was referred to Colliery Medical Officer who assessed the age as 22 years as on 10.09.1976 and his Date of Birth was recorded in the Initial Medical Examination (IME) report (Form-O) as 10.09.1954. Petitioner acknowledged the same and voluntarily affixed his thumb impression on the IME and Age Assessment Forms and the same was recorded in his service particulars. His age/date of birth recorded in various records are furnished here under:
1. Initial Medical Examination-Form-O-22 years as on 10.09.1976
2. Age Assessment Report 22 years as on 10.09.1976
3. Age entered in Identity &Service card 22 years as on 10.09.1976
4. Office Order empanelling -Not placed in his personal file Date of Birth
- Nil
5. Age as per B Register - 22 years as on 10.09.1976 - Date of Birth
6. Pension Nomination Forms:
Forms PS-3 and PS-4). -10.09.1954 Date of Birth
7. Employee Personal Record (EPR) - 10.09.1954 Date of Birth It is further stated that Petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 3218 of 2013 which was disposed of vide common order in Writ Petition No. 33343 of 2012 and batch of cases and pursuant to the direction issued therein, petitioner was directed to appear before the Apex Medical Board on 05.01.2016 and 14.01.2016, after examination, he was assessed 5 as 60 as on 14.01.2016, as such his date of birth was approved as 22 years as on 10.09.1976. It is also stated that date of birth of Petitioner was updated in service records and he was retired from services with effect from 01.10.2014 after attaining the age of superannuation. It is stated further that since there is no variation in the entries of his age/date of birth as recorded in the records of the Respondent Company and the finding of Apex Medical Board, as he was appointed in the services of Company as an illiterate and did not submit any documents at the time of his appointment, his request for altering date of birth does not merit any consideration, hence the age recorded in the records of the Respondent Company holds good. It is therefore, contended that Writ Petition is liable for dismissal on the ground of Res Judicata.
3. Heard Sri K. Mallikarjun, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent.
4. Petitioner's case is that he submitted 7th class Transfer Certificate but the same was not considered by the respondents. Whereas, the respondent Organisation submits that at the time of his initial appointment, petitioner had not submitted such a certificate as proof of age and since he joined 6 Respondent Company as an illiterate and did not submit any valid proof of date of birth, he was referred to Colliery Medical Officer who assessed his age as 22 years as on 10.09.1976 and his Date of Birth was recorded in the Initial Medical Examination (IME) report (Form-O) as 10.09.1954. Petitioner acknowledged the same and voluntarily affixed his thumb impression on the IME and Age Assessment Forms and the same was recorded in his service particulars. Further, the Apex Medical Board assessed his age as 60 as on 14.01.2016, as such his date of birth was approved as 22 years as on 10.09.1976. Accordingly, the date of birth of petitioner was updated in service records and he retired from service on 01.10.2014 after attaining the age of superannuation.
5. Petitioner, admittedly, joined service of the respondent Company in 1976. He made an Application to the Colliery Manager of K.K 5A Incline (where he worked at that time) for rectification of date of birth as per 7th class transfer certificate No. 3804 which was issued on 18.11.1974 by the Head Master, Z.P. High School, Bachampet, Warangal District;
then it was forwarded to General Manager, Mandamarri, who gave a reply dated 03.05.1996 stating that transfer certificate cannot be taken into consideration for correction of date of 7 birth. He filed Writ Petition No. 30218 of 2010 challenging the reply after fourteen years, which was dismissed on ground of delay and latches and that if the Corporation takes any scheme for alteration of date of birth, his case would get attracted. From the reply, it is clear that nearly after 20 years of his induction into service, he attempted to rectify his date of birth, which, by no standards, can be held to be reasonable, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas 1. Further, when petitioner had opportunity to rectify at the time of IME, he did not avail the same and he put his thumb impression acknowledging the date of birth mentioned therein, hence, just prior to his retirement, filing representation seeking change in the date of birth, cannot be entertained at the fag end of service after accepting the same to be correct during entire service, as has been held in Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Shyam Kishore Singh 2.
6. Here, it is pertinent to note that law on this aspect is no more res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd.'s case (supra), held the law on change of date of birth as under: 1
(2011) 9 SCC 664 2 (2020) 3 SCC 411 8
(i) Application for change of date of birth can only be as per the relevant provisions / regulations applicable;
(ii) Even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right;
(iii) Application can be rejected on the ground of delay and laches 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.'
7. In the light of the law declared on the subject, as stated supra, in the absence of any proof to show that petitioner produced relevant documents in proof of his age at the time of his initial appointment and since he approached this Court on the verge of retirement, this Court is of the considered opinion that Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
9. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 28th May 2025 ksld