Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, JJ.
South Eastern Coalfields Limited through The Chairman Cum-Managing Director and ors. – Appellants
Versus
Ikramuddin S/o Gulam Mohammed - Respondent
WA No. 384 of 2021
Decided On : 30-11-2023
Age Determination - Employment Dispute - Implementation Instruction No. 76 - Para A(ii), Para B(i)(a) - The court discussed the provisions of Implementation Instruction No. 76, which provides for the determination of age at the time of appointment and review/determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees. The court highlighted the specific documents deemed correct for determining date of birth and emphasized that the date of birth at the time of entry in service is based on the information furnished by the employee. The court also referred to relevant Supreme Court decisions to support its decision to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a petition seeking to set aside an order related to his superannuation and correction of his date of birth. The learned Single Judge referred the dispute to the Age Determination Committee. The appellant argued that the petition was not sustainable due to delay and laches, and the representation for correction of date of birth was made at the fag end of the respondent's service career.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the representation for change of date of birth was made at the fag end of the respondent's career, and no explanation was offered for the delay. The court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, stating that the respondent was not entitled to any relief.
Issues: The issues involved delay and laches in the representation for correction of date of birth, the applicability of Implementation Instruction No. 76, and the entitlement of the respondent to relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the representation for change of date of birth made at the fag end of the respondent's career, without any explanation for the delay, was not entitled to relief. The court also emphasized the importance of the information furnished by the employee for determining date of birth at the time of entry in service.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, J.
1. Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellants/South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (for short, the SECL) and Mr. Kamaljeet Singh Saini, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 01.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 141 of 2012 whereby the learned Single Judge has referred the matter with regard to determination of the age of the respondent/writ petitioner to the Age Determination Committee under Implementation Instruction No. 76 with a direction to consider the same within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
3. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellants/SECL submits that the respondent/writ petitioner had the aforesaid petition seeking setting aside of the order dated 31.08.2011 (Annexure P/1) which is a notice with regard to his superannuation on 31.01.2012 and the order dated 27.12.2011 (Annexure P/9) by which his representation dated 22.12.2011 for correction of his date of birth has been rejected. The writ petitioner had further prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to correct his date of birth in the official records as 16.07.1956 in place of 16.07.1952 and to allow him to continue his services till attainment of the age of superannuation. He had also prayed for referring the matter to the Age Determination Committee/Medical Apex Board for assessment of the actual date of birth of the writ petitioner.
4. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, disposed of the petition referring the dispute to the Age Determination Committee, as above.
5. It is submitted by Mr. Deshmukh that the writ petitioner was appointed to the post of Electrician on 24.01.1975. In the statutory Form-B, the age of the writ petitioner was recorded as 23 years as on 24.01.1975 which was on the basis of disclosure made by the writ petitioner himself and it was signed also for confirmation. The date of birth (16.07.1952) recorded in Form PS-3 and PS-4 which has also been accepted by the writ petitioner by putting his signature on the service register. In all the said statutory documents maintained by the SECL, wherein date of birth is recorded as 23 year as on 24.01.1975 and the date 16. 07.1952 has also been accepted by the writ petitioner at relevant point of time and at the time of signing of the said statutory document, the writ petitioner did not raise any objection in respect of entry of date of birth in the service record. While the writ petitioner was at the fag end of his service, he had submitted a representation (Annexure P/8) for correction of his date of birth as well as request for referring his case to the Age Determination Committee. The concerned authority had considered his representation and passed a speaking order on 27.12.2011 and rejected the claim of the writ petitioner relying upon the provisions of Implementation Instruction No. 76 as his case did not fell under the said provisions for correcting the date of birth on the basis of 5th standard certificate. The writ petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years w.e.f. 31.01.2012 and on his retirement, entire retiral dues has also been paid to him.
6. Mr. Deshmukh further submits that the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner is not sustainable for the reason that the petitioner was appointed on 21.01.1975 in SECL and after lapse of more than 36 years, he has approached this Hon'ble Court by filing writ petition at the fag end of his service career as can be seen that the petitioner was going to be retired on 31.01.2012 on the basis of the date of birth entered in his service record and the writ petition was filed on 09.01.2012 on the verge of his retirement and as such, the petition suffers from gross delay and laches as the petition has been filed at a much belated stage, therefore, the petition deserves to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches alone. Moreover, the writ pe
The importance of timely and justified representation for correction of date of birth in employment disputes, and the reliance on employee-furnished information for determining date of birth at the t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that requests for correction of date of birth at the fag end of a career must be supported by irrefutable proof and evidence of real injustice, and....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for irrefutable proof and timely requests for correction of date of birth in service records, as well as the limitations on seeking....
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
