1 / 6 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9420 of 2022 Indrabhaan Singh S/o Ganesh Ram Aged About 58 Years R/o M. Q/1482, Pragati Nagar, Dipka, Tahsil Dipka, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director (Personnel) South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Dipika Area, District Korba Chhattisgarh 4 - Deputy General Manager (Personnel) South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Dipika Area, District Korba Chhattisgarh 5 - Deputy General Manager (Finance) South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Dipika Area, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 15.04.2026 (1)By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 / 6 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to direct the respondent authority to correct the date of birth of the petitioner from 06-12-1962 to 06-12-1964 in his service record. 10.2 That, further this court may kindly please to direct the respondent authority to quash the notice dated 07-07-2022 and allow the petitioner to continue his service period as per his actual date of birth.” (2)Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of General Mazdoor, Category-I, vide order dated 15.02.2006 and was posted at Dipka Area, District Korba (C.G.). He would further submit that at the time of his appointment, the petitioner had correctly mentioned his date of birth as 06.12.1964. However, due to typographical error, his date of birth was erroneously recorded as 06.12.1962 in the service records. He would also submit that on 07.07.2022, the respondent authorities issued a notice to the petitioner intimating that as per his date of birth recorded in the service record, he would superannuate on 31.12.2022, and by virtue of the said notice, for the first time, the petitioner became aware of the error in his recorded date of birth. He immediately submitted a representation before the respondent authorities, along with an affidavit and supporting documents, but the respondent authorities rejected the same; thereafter, on 03.12.2022, the petitioner submitted another detailed representation, along with all relevant documents. He would argue that despite repeated representations, the respondent authorities have failed to consider the grievance of the petitioner. As a consequence, the petitioner got retired prematurely on 31.12.2022, on account of clerical/typographical error in the service record. 3 / 6 (3)On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/SECL would oppose the submissions put forth by the counsel for the petitioner and submit that at the time of appointment on 15.02.2006, the petitioner’s date of birth was duly recorded in the service record as 06.12.1962, and the petitioner did not raise any objection to the same for a long period. He would further submit that the petitioner remained silent throughout his service tenure and only raised an objection after issuance of the retirement notice dated 07.07.2022, wherein his superannuation was fixed as 31.12.2022. Such a belated claim for correction of date of birth, made at the fag end of service, is not permissible in law; thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed. (4)I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record with utmost circumspection. (5)In the matter of Jai Prakash Singh Versus South Eastern Coalfields & Ors., WA No. 480 of 2023 dated 14.03.2024, the Hon’ble Division Bench has held that “There is no doubt that the Employer can take recourse of correction of date of birth of any of its Employees, but he should be in possession of satisfactorily, admissible and irrefutable piece of evidence with him.” The relevant paras 28, 29, & 30 read thus:- “28.There is no doubt that the Employer can take recourse of correction of date of birth of any of its Employees, but he should be in possession of satisfactorily, admissible and irrefutable piece of evidence with him, particularly, when the Employer wants to correct date of birth recorded by one of its Employees, in service record of any other Employee at the time of entering into the service of that particular Employee. 29.In the instant case, it is the employer who suspected the date of birth recorded in service 4 / 6 record. The employee is having matriculation certificate with same date of birth as recorded in service record, i.e., 01.07.1959. The certificate is not questioned by the respondent-employer which is one of the documents as mentioned in Implementation Instruction No.76 to be authentic document for ascertaining the age. 30.The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-employee relying on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited Vs. T.P. Nataraja & others (supra) by holding that at the fag end of his career the petitioner/appellant has challenged the date of birth and considering the nature of dispute the writ petition has been dismissed. Facts of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure case (supra) are on different footing than the facts of the present case. In the present case from the year 1976 till 2000, the date of birth of the appellant-employee was mentioned in his service record as 01.07.1959 and only on the basis of a letter issued by the Ministry of Coal, Government of India dated 01.02.1999, they have altered the date of birth of the appellant-employee unilaterally as 28.02.1958 vide order dated 12.05.2000. It is not a case that the appellant-employee has challenged his date of birth in the fag end of his service career. But it is a case where the Respondent/employer has unilaterally altered his date of birth after 24 years of his service and the petitioner/employee wants to correct in its original position for which he is having matriculation certificate.” (6) In the matter of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited Versus T. P. Nataraja & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 5720 of 2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of date of birth in para 10 held as under:- “10. Considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court the law on change of date of birth can be summarized as under: 5 / 6 (i) application for change of date of birth can only be as per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable; (ii) even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right; (iii) application can be rejected on the ground of delay and latches also more particularly when it is made at the fag end of service and/or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation.” (7) The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the matter of South Eastern Coalfields Limited & Ors Versus Ikramuddin, WA No. 384 of 2021 relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matter of T. P. Nataraja (supra) in para-14 held as under:- “14. Therefore, applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, the representation made by the writ petitioner seeking change of his date of birth or to refer his case to the Age Determination Committee was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches also and as such the respondent/writ petitioner was not entitled for any relief. The order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be and is accordingly set aside.” (8) In the present petition, the petitioner has not sought correction of his date of birth at any earlier point of time and continued in service without raising any objection to the recorded date of birth. The application for correction was moved only after issuance of the retirement notice dated 07.07.2022, i.e., at the fag end of his service. 6 / 6 (9) Taking into consideration the above discussed facts and settled position of law that correction of date of birth cannot be permitted at the verge of retirement, no case is made out for grant of any relief. (10) Consequently, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim