IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL th ON THE 20 OF FEBRUARY, 2024 SECOND APPEAL NO.1565 OF 2020 BETWEEN:-

1. CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, NORTHERN COALFIELD LTD., JAYANT PROJECT TAH. & DISTT.

SINGRAULI (MP)

2. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, NORTHERN COALFIELD LTD., JAYANT PROJECT TAH. & DISTT. SINGRAULI (MP)

3. DY. CHIEF (PERS) MANAGER, NORTHERN COALFIELD LTD., JAYANT PROJECT TAH. & DISTT. SINGRAULI (MP)

.....APPELLANTS (SHRI GREESHM JAIN - ADVOCATE)

AND HIRAWATI SHAH W/O LATE D.C. SHAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O H. NO. A-80, NCL JAYANT PROJECT COLONY, POST JAYANT DISTRICT SINGRAULI ....RESPONDENT This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2019 passed by 3^rd Addl. District Judge, Singrauli, Headquarter Waidhan, in RCA No.300023/2015 affirming judgment and decree dated 18.12.2014 passed by 2^nd Addl. Judge to the Court of 1^st Civil Judge Class-I, Singrauli in civil suit no.59-A/2014 whereby respondent/plaintiff’s suit for declaration and mandatory injunction regarding her date of birth to be 01.12.1971, has been decreed with the further direction to record the same in her service book.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that due to death of plaintiff’s husband on 14.04.1994, she was given compassionate appointment on 25.10.1994. Because the plaintiff had shown herself to be illiterate, her medical examination was done on 10.10.1994 and the Medical Board opined her age to be 32 years 6 months, by way of certificate (Ex.D/1), according to which, her date of birth comes 10.04.1962. He further submits that despite raising objection in the written statement about the suit to be barred by limitation, Courts below have not cared to decide the same by framing requisite issue. He also submits that the claim/representation submitted by the plaintiff was rejected on 08.03.1997 (Ex.D/3), therefore, the suit filed on 06.09.2013 is clearly barred by limitation. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh vs. Megh Raj Garg and another (2010) 6 SCC 482 and in the case of M. Radhakrishnan vs. The District Educational Officer 1997(1) CTC 133. With these submissions, he prays for admission of the second appeal.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.

4. The aforementioned factual aspect argued by the learned counsel for the appellants does not appear to be in dispute but the plaintiff has come with the case that because of death of her husband and at the time of her compassionate appointment, she could not submit the documents of her educational qualifications and on the basis of her medical examination, her age was recorded as 32 years 6 months whereas the plaintiff passed her primary school examination in the year 1984 (Ex.P/4) in which her date of birth is recorded as 01.12.1971 and similar is the position in the successive certificates/marksheets (Ex.P/1, P/2 and P/3) and there is nothing on record to doubt their veracity. As such, Courts below have held the date of birth of plaintiff to be 01.12.1971.

5. Upon perusal of entire record, this Court does not find any illegality in the findings recorded by Courts below regarding date of birth of plaintiff to be 01.12.1971.

6. So far as the question of limitation of 3 years for filing the civil suit is concerned, although vide document dated 08.03.1997 (Ex.D/3) the claim of plaintiff was rejected but at the end of this document, it is mentioned that the case of the plaintiff may be sent to Mahaprabandhak, Singrauli for decision and ultimately the claim of the plaintiff was rejected lastly vide letter dated 07.03.2012 (Ex.P/8 and D/5), therefore, the suit filed on 06.09.2013 is clearly within limitation.

7. In the case of Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd., Shakkarnagar, Bodhan vs. Sarfar