SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Telangana) 498

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
Kambam Venkata Rao – Petitioner
Versus
The Chairman and Managing Director, Singareni Collieries Company – Respondent
W.P. No. 8715 of 2020
Decided On : 01-11-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sriman.

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 cannot be entertained as a matter of right.

Headnote:

Date of Birth - Employment Dispute - JBCCI Implementation Instruction No. 76 - The court discussed the petitioner's claim for correction of date of birth and retirement date, considering the JBCCI guidelines and relevant case law. The court found that the petitioner's request for correction of date of birth was an afterthought at the fag end of his career, and dismissed the writ petition.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner joined the respondent organization with a recorded date of birth as 26 years as on 03.04.1986. After passing the SSC examination in October 1986, the petitioner sought to correct his date of birth to 09.02.1963, claiming that it was entered incorrectly. The respondent company issued a notice of superannuation, and the petitioner retired on 30.04.2020. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking correction of his date of birth and retirement date.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's claim for correction of date of birth was an afterthought at the fag end of his career, and there was no material on record to establish that the petitioner corresponded with the respondent authorities for correction of date of birth. The court also noted that the petitioner did not challenge the letter confirming his correct date of birth after having acknowledged it.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to correction of his date of birth and retirement date, and the validity of the petitioner's claim in light of the JBCCI guidelines and relevant case law.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's request for correction of date of birth at the fag end of his career was not sustainable, citing relevant case law. The court emphasized the need for irrefutable proof and a real injustice to be established for such corrections, and dismissed the writ petition.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought.

JUDGMENT :

SUREPALLI NANDA, J.

W.P. No. 8715 of 2020

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the Respondents.

2. PERSUED THE RECORD:

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE:

3. The Petitioner joined the Respondent organization on 03.04.1986 as Floating Badli Filler on Piece-Rated wages. At the time of Petitioner’s appointment, Petitioner’s age is fixed at 26 years as on 03.04.1986 by the Respondents basing on assessment done by the Medical Officer. The Petitioner passed SSC examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Andhra Pradesh in the month of October 1986 and thereafter Petitioner made a representation to the Respondents to correct the Petitioner’s date of birth as per the entry in the Secondary School Certificate i.e. 09.02.1963. The Director (PA&W) vide its Ref. No. GC/BPA35/90/969, dated 31.03.1990 informed that the case of the Petitioner will be examined in terms of Memo of Settlement dated 12.03.1990 and Petitioner was advised to approach General Manager, Bellampalli. The 5th Respondent issued Notice vide Ref. No. KGM/JVR/MGR/WO/PF/270/1237, dated 20.03.2020 informing the Petitioner that the Petitioner is going to complete 60 years as on 30.04.2020 and 30.04.2020 is the last working day to the Petitioner. The 4th Respondent issued removal notice vide Ref. No. KGM/JVR/MGR/WO/PF/270/1333, dated 01.04.2020 informing the Petitioner that after working hours of 30.04.2020 the name of the Petitioner will be removed from the company rolls.

4. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents filed on 10.09.2020 with certain documents, Paras 6, 7 and 8 read as under:

    Para 6: In this connection, it is submitted that the petitioner was appointed in the Company as Badli Coalfiller on 13.05.1980 At the time of his appointment, the petitioner could not submit any proof for his age/date of birth. As per the rules of the respondent company, he was referred to Colliery Medic Officer for assessment of his age/date of birth. The Collicery Medical Officer has assessed his date of birth as 26 years as on 03.04.1986 and accordingly the petitioner's date of birth was recorded in the service book as well as in the Initial Medical Examination report (Form-O) as 26 years as on 03.04.1986 is his date of appointment and based on which he was issued one month advance superannuation notice at his place of work i.e. JVR OCP, Sathupalli in Kothagudem area. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner himself has agreed that he did not submit any proof of his age/date of birth at the time of his appointment.

Para 7: In reply to averments in Para 4 it is submitted that in reply to his representation submitted to the Director (PA&W) the petitioner was informed that his case will be examined in terms of memo. Of settlement dated 12.03.1990 and was advised to approach General Manager, Bellampalli Area, but the petitioner has not approached the General Manager, Bellampalli Area with regard to correction of his age/date of birth. The petitioner's claim that he has approached the General Manager, Bellampalli Area for correction of his date of birth and subsequently claiming that his date of birth has been altered as 09.02.1963 is not true and it is denied and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. As per the JBCCI guidelines, the case of the existing employees Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the recognized Universities or Board or Middle Pass Certificate issued by the Board of Education and/or Department of Public Institutions and admit cards issued by the aforesaid Bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said Universities/Boards/Institutions prior to the date of employment.

Para 8: In reply to averments in Para 5, it is submitted the petitioner has appeared as private candidate for SSC examination in October 1986, whereas he has appointed in th

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        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

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top