Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
R. Kantha Rao, J.
Amula Ramaiah – Appellant
Vs.
The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 12282 of 2013
Decided On: 05.08.2014
Constitution of India, Art. 226 – Correction of Date of Birth – School Certificate – Writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent in refusing to record correct date of birth as per school certificate, as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, discriminatory, amounting to unfair labour practice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and21 of the Constitution of India, and grant all consequential benefits by continuing him in service till he attains the age of superannuation –According to the petitioner, as per Instruction No. 76 of Age Retirement Rules, in case of appointees who have pursued studies in a recognized educational institution, the date of birth recorded in the school leaving certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances. It is further submitted that the action of the respondents in rejecting his representation wherein he sought for correction of date of birth is contrary to the circular dated 25.04.1988 and therefore, he filed the present writ petition seeking correction of date of birth in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Held, Present case have to be examined in the light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments. The normal rule is that when the employee disputes the date of birth which is entered in the service record and produces some documentary evidence showing a different date of birth, it is a disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Further, this Court to exercise its judicial discretion under Article 226, has to take into account the conduct of the parties, if there is inordinate delay in approaching the Court for their relief, and there are on the part of the petitioner, the Court normally would not interfere to grant the relief prayed for in the writ petition. The general rule is that after joining service, the employee if at all disputes the date of birth which is entered in the service record, has to make an application for correction of the same soon-after he joining service or at least within a reasonable time. Further, after rendering services for over a period of decades, the employee cannot plead ignorance of his date of birth entered in the service records. If at all, the employee contends that he was not made aware of the date of birth entered in service record by preventing access to the records maintained by the management, he has to establish the said fact by adducing reliable and convincing evidence. Without there being any compelling reasons, it is not possible to believe that the petitioner in the instant case is not aware of his date of birth entered in service records for a period of 33 years. In all the service records of the petitioner – Application is dismissed.
R. Kantha Rao, J.
1. This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent in Ref. No. RG1/SPC/21/1050, dated 22.10.2012, refusing to record correct date of birth as 10.08.1962 as per school certificate, as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, discriminatory, amounting to unfair labour practice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and21 of the Constitution of India, and grant all consequential benefits by continuing him in service till he attains the age of superannuation on 31.08.2022.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Company.
3. The brief facts relevant for considering the issues involved in the writ petition may be stated as follows:
4. The petitioner joined the service of the respondents-company on 31.07.1979 as temporary Tunnel Mazdoor at GDK-V Incline. According to him, before joining service, he pursued his education up to SSC but failed. However, he passed 7th class board examination and obtained transfer certificate from the Zilla Parishad Secondary School, Ramagundam on 20.07.1977. He says that at the time of joining service, he obtained the transfer certificate, but the recording authority did not record the date of birth as mentioned in the certificate and/recorded it only as 31.07.1954. Whereas, it is recorded in the transfer certificate as 10.08.1962. Subsequently, he was promoted as Coal Filler and thereafter, the respondents called for applications for the post of Security Guards by issuing a notification in the year 1989 and as stipulated in the notification, one should pass 7th Class to become eligible for the post of Security Guard. The petitioner produced the transfer certificate which shows that he passed 7th Class in the year 1974 itself. Pursuant to the said notification he was selected as Security Guard on 29.08.1989. Again, he was promoted as Jamedar, T & S. Group-E in pursuance of the notification dated 23.05.2007. The qualification required for the said post also 7th Class and he produced the transfer certificate in that connection and he was promoted as Jamedar on 20.12.2011.
5. It is further submitted by the petitioner that during the entire period of service, he has no access to the records which are maintained by the respondents-company. In the year 2011, the petitioner developed giddiness and was sent for medical check up at the company hospital. The doctor who examined him in the company hospital found that the petitioner was suffering from high blood pressure and he needs to undergo frequent periodical checkups, on that he obtained a medical card from the company and he was surprised to notice that his age was recorded as 57 years showing his retirement date as 31.07.2014. Immediately, he submitted representation to the respondents-company seeking correction of the date of birth in the service record. Further, the respondents-company themselves issued a newspaper notification on 29.08.2012 calling for the objections from the employees with regard to discrepancy in recording the date of birth as per the school certificates in the service record. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application duly enclosing the school certificate again requesting them to record correct date of birth as 10.08.1962 only but not as 31.07.1954 which was recorded in the service records. The 3rd respondent by order dated 22.10.2012 rejected the representation made by the petitioner.
6. The petitioner therefore contends that the action of the respondents in proposing to retire him from service on 31.07.2014 is illegal, unjust, contrary to rules amounting to unfair labour practice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and that he is entitled to continue in service as per transfer certificate up to 31.08.2022.
7. According to the petitioner, as per Instruction No. 76 of Age Retirement Rules, in case of appointees who have pursued st
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
