IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN MISC. PETITION NO. 4967 OF 2022.

THE SUB AREA MANAGER AND OTHERS Versus RAMESHWAR PATHAK (DEAD) THROUGH LR.S SMT. SHAKUNTALA PATHAK AND OTEHRS.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance:

Ms. Kanak Gaharwar - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri K.C. Ghildiyal- Senior Advocate with Shri Karnik Singh- Advocate for the respondents.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(O R D E R)

(Reserved on : 21/01/2026)

(Pronounced on: 24/02/2026)

The present petition has been filed by the employer-South Eastern Coalfields Limited (for short “SECL”) being aggrieved by the award dated 22.12.2021 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (for short CGIT), thereby the Labour Court has allowed the reference proceedings initiated at the instance of the respondent/workman and directed that the date of birth of workman/respondent be reckoned as 01-07-1957, as recorded in his matriculation certificate, which is in consonance with the provisions as prescribed in Implementation Instructions No. 76 (for short “I.I.No.76”), and further held him entitled to wages and retiral benefits accordingly.

2. The facts in brief for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that appointed as General Majdoor in the year 1978 and at the time of appointment, his date of birth was recorded as 25 years as on 13-12-1978 and accordingly, the date of birth was recorded as 13-12-1953, whereas his actual date of birth as per High School Certificate was 1-7-1957 and the said Certificate was issued in the year 1971. As per the age, as recorded in the matriculation certificate, his superannuation would be 01-07-2017, but his date of birth has been reckoned as 13-12-1953 and he has been found to have attained his age of 60 years on 13-12-

2013.

3. It was mentioned that in various service records, the date of birth continued to be mentioned as 13.12.1953 which was erroneous and it should have been 01.07.1957 and later on when the workman had pointed out the discrepancy, then in some documents, his date of birth was recorded as 01-07- 1957. Most importantly, it is argued that since the workman was subsequently promoted to ministerial cadre in the year 1981 as Tub-Writer and then Clerk Grade-II in 1984 and Clerk Grade-I in 1987, then all this was on the basis of the same Matriculation certificate which mentions his date of birth as 01-07-1957, but for the purpose of date of birth, the said matriculation certificate has not been given effect to. He further contended that somewhere in the year 1987, he filled up his date of birth in the service excerpt as 01-07-1957, but despite that he has been informed that he will be retired on 31-12-2013 by treating his date of birth as 13- 12-1953. He filed W.P. No. 14501/2011 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 06.10.2012 had directed the respondents to consider his representation, but upon erroneous rejection of the representation by the Age Determination Committee vide their order dated 0.02.2013, he again approached this court in WP No.20196/2013 in which initially stay was granted and he continued to be in service, but later on he said the petition was disposed of 23.03.2015 holding that the question of date of birth is highly disputed question and therefore the petitioner may take recourse to the remedies under the Industrial Law and with this liberty, this Court disposed of the petition. After this petition was disposed of on 23.03.015, immediately thereafter the SECL relieved him from duties on 08.04.2015. These events led him to challenge the aforesaid relieving from services and further seeking superannuation on proper date of birth, before the CGIT.

4. On the aforesaid assertions, the case was contested by the workman for the reliefs as sought by him.

5. The petitioner SECL filed their reply i