2025:CGHC:22599 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4162 of 2021 Reserved On : 11.03 .2025 Pronounced On : 09.06 .2025 Smt. Sudha Devi Singh W/o Late Janardan Singh Aged About 51 Years Occupation Ecg Technician Grade-C, Secl, Central Hospital, Hasdeo Area, Manendrragarh, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through The Chairman-Cum- Managing Director, Seepat Road, Basant Vihar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, 2 - The Director ( Personnel), S.E.C.L. Basant Vihar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Chief General Manager, Secl, Baikunthpur, District-Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The General Manager (P And A), Secl Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Area Manager, Hasdeo Area, Secl, Baikuntpur, District-Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Personnel Manager, Central Hospital, Manendragarh, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ---Respondents ________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate ________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas, J. CAV ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing order dated 27.05.2021 (Annexure P/12) passed by respondent No. 4 by which the representation of the petitioner for correction of her date of birth in the service record has been rejected. 2. The brief facts as projected by the petitioner are that :- (A) The petitioner was initially appointed in SECL as General Mazdoor Category-I on 12.05.1997 and subsequently, she was promoted on the basis of her academic qualification on the post of ECG Technician Grade-C, Central Hospital, Hasdeo Area. It has been further contented that the date of birth of the petitioner as per the school leaving certificate of Class 8th, the mark sheet of Class 10th of Prayag Mahila Vidya Pith, is 07.08 1969. The date of birth of the petitioner has been incorrectly entered in service record as 31.12.1962 which was prepared in the year 1998. The petitioner for the first time came to know about the wrong entry of the date of birth in the year 2000 and she moved the application for correction of date of birth to the concerning authorities thereafter she sent several reminders and representations one after the another before the respondents, which was not decided. (B) She made fresh representation for rectification of the wrong entry on 17.02.2015. Thereafter the several representations dated 30.07.2016, 01.08.2016 were submitted. In furtherance of the representations the respondent issued an office order to conduct ADC for age determination vide order dated 17.07.2017. In pursuance of the said order the ADC of the petitioner was conducted on 18.07.2017. Copy of the ADC has not been provided to the petitioner, therefore, she filed the writ petition before this Court for redressal of her grievances as WP(S) No. 5574/2020 which was disposed of by this Court on 01.02.2021 (Annexure P/10) directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within 60 days. (C) In pursuance of the order passed by this Court fresh representation was submitted on 12.02.2021. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 decided the representation of the petitioner and rejected the prayer of the correction of date of birth and held that her date of birth is 31.12.1962. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has filed present writ petition. 3. The respondent SECL has filed their return wherein they have submitted that :- (A) The instant petition deserves to be dismissed as an alternative remedy of raising dispute under the Industrial Dispute Act is available to the petitioner and on the count of delay and latches in preferring the writ petition, as she has filed present petition on 24.07.2021 only a year before her retirement. Therefore, no change in date of birth can be made at the fag end of service. (B) It has been further contended that the petitioner was appointed in service on 12.05.1997 as dependent employment as General Majdoor Category-I and the petitioner first time made a representation for correction of her date of birth in the service record before the respondent authorities on 17. 02.2015 i.e. after about more than 17 years from joining of service. It is further submitted that in the appointment letter of petitioner, it was specifically mentioned that her age as 34 years as on 31.12.1996 as per special age determination committee. She accepted the same without any objection and joined the service on 20.05.1997 at Regional Work Shop Hasdev Area SECL. It is further submitted that at the time of joining of service in the first Form B Register of R.W.S Hasdev Area, the age of petitioner was recorded as 34 years as on 31.12.1996 and the same was accepted by the petitioner by putting her signature in Form-B Register which is prepared immediately after her joining which is a statutory record prepared under the Mines Act and Rules. (C) It is further contended that the petitioner was given dependent employment being widow of Shri Janardhan Singh of South Jhimer Colliery, Hasdeo Area prepared in October 1987 in which the name of his wife and daughter was recorded as Smt. Sudha Devi, aged 25 years and Kumari Roshni aged 04 years as on 01.04.1987 respectively Shri Janardhan Singh, who died on 12.05.1995 put his Left Thumb Impression/signed. After death of Late Janardhan Singh on 12.05.1995, his wife Smt. Sudha Devi i.e. the petitioner submitted an application on 25.08.1995 for seeking appointment under the provision of dependent employment of NCWA and she had submitted copy of Mark sheet dated 12.07 1986 of Vidya Vinodani (Matriculation) Examination of Prayag Mahila Vidyapith, Allahabad in which her date of birth was mentioned as 07.08.1969. In the above application, the petitioner had enclosed the certificate dated 08.07.1995 issued by Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Dola, Dist Anuppur (MP), certifying that Smt. Sudha Devi W/o Late Janardhan Singh had four children, the eldest being Kumari Roshni, aged 12 years. Similarly, in affidavit dated 12.07.1995 of Smt. Sudha Devi, the age of her eldest daughter Kumari Roshni was mentioned as 12 years. (D) Before the appointment, the petitioner has submitted the Attestation Form, in which in the Column 10, she was required to mention details of her educational qualification showing place of education with years in school and colleges. The petitioner mentioned only regarding her Vidya Vinondani (Matriculation) Examination as passed out from Prayag Mahila Vidyapith, Allahabad in 1985. The claim of petitioner for dependent employment was considered and sanction for employment of petitioner was conveyed in which it was specifically mentioned that "the age recorded in the Official documents of the deceased employee Janardhan Singh is contrary to the proposal, affidavit and other documents etc. of the female dependent, therefore, the same will not be taken as the correct date of birth and treated her as illiterate female dependent i.e. those who are below Matriculate and opined that in such case, the age of the female dependent is to be determined by the Special Age Determination Committee consisting of Area Medical Head, Area Personnel Head, Area Finance Head and Stall Officer (M) to the CGM/GM of the Area. Accordingly, she was advised to be present in the Office of Dy. Chief Medical Officer Hasdeo Area on 31.12.1996 at 10:00 am for determination of her age. After completion of official formalities the appointment letter dated 12.05.1997 was issued to the petitioner offering appointment as General Mazdoor Category-I and posted at Regional Work Shop Bijuri of Hasdev Area S.E.C.L., in which the age of petitioner was specifically mentioned as 34 years as on 31.12.1996 as per special age committee dated 31.12.1996. (E) Subsequently the petitioner was transferred to Central Hospital Manendragarh from the R.W.S. Hasdev Area SECL. In her relieving order dated 28.02.1998 and L.P.C. dated 18.03.1998, her date of birth was mentioned as 31.12.1962 The petitioner joined in Central Hospital Manendragarh on 02.03.1998, where in Form-B Register her date of birth was recorded as 31.12.1962. The above Form-B Register also bears the signature of the petitioner. (F) It is further contended that the Form PS-3 & PS-4 of Coal Mines Pension Scheme of petitioner was prepared in the month of May,1998, in which the petitioner herself mentioned her date of birth as 31.12.1962 and put her signature and accepted the same as correct. During the service tenure, the petitioner also avail the L.T.C. /LL.T.C. claim, in which she mentioned her age as 36 years, as on 28.03.1998 and age 47 years as on September 2010, which is matched with her date of birth as 31.12.1962. Page 7 of 17 (G) It is further submitted that the petitioner while working as General Mazdoor Category-1, at Central Hospital, Manendragarh after passing High School Certificate Examination MP State Open School, Bhopal in 1999, submitted copy of her Marksheet issued in Nov 1999, Roll No. 041082031, Date of birth 07.08.1969 in year 2000 and requested for giving proper posting. (H) On consideration of repeated representations of petitioner for correction of date of birth, the Age Determination Committee was constituted who has wrongly recognized the date of birth of the petitioner as 07.08.1969 on the basis of educational qualification whereas the petitioner was appointed as General Category worker illiterate. Due to discrepancy regarding date of birth in the service record of her husband and the record submitted by her and she was treated as Category- I illiterate workman as per the Instruction dated 11.12.1996 which has been accepted by the petitioner without any objection. (I) It is further submitted that the marksheet (Annexure P/3) issued by Prayag Mahila Vidyapeeth is not recognition from Govt. of UP or from the Govt. of India whereas the Instruction No. 76 issued in pursuance of NCWA with the representative of Union provides that only the certificates issued by the recognized educational institution university or board is valid for the purposes of age determination. As such, constitution of Age Determination Committee to examine her case was not warranted and the age as assessed by Special Age Committee i.e. 34 years on 31.12.1996 is the correct age of petitioner and does not warrants any interference therefore, would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The petitioner filed rejoinder contending that instant petition does not suffer any inordinate delay and when the petitioner came to know about the wrong entry and manipulation in her service record in the year 2000 then she forthwith moved the application for correction of date of birth before the Management of the respondent-company to the concerning authorities. The petitioner was granted compassionate appointment in lieu of the services of her deceased husband but she has never signed any paper/form as the token of acceptance. It has been further contended that the appointment order which does not contain the date of birth of the petitioner and only a tentative age has been mentioned as 34 years, which is not conclusive piece of evidence and the actual date of birth was required to be determined by the respondents-authorities through the ADC, which was done subsequently in the year 2017 and the report of the ADC also came in favour of the petitioner stipulating the actual date of birth of the petitioner to be 07/08/1969 even then the respondents recorded the incorrect date of birth without any basis or documentary entries as 31/12/1962 which has been recorded without any material as such it is illegal. It has been further contented that she was never subjected to the medical examination of Special Age Determination Committee, therefore, all the entries have been made completely ex-parte and in arbitrary manner, apart from this the so called Special Age Determination Committee has determined the age without the consent of the petitioner. So far as the allegation is being made by the respondents that the said institute has neither any recognition from Govt. of Uttar Pradesh nor from the Government of India it is wrong the true position is that the Prayag Mahila Vidyapeeth is recognized by the State of Bihar and the said certificate is valid and would pray for allowing the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the nomination of the petitioner dated 21.05.1998 in the column of the guardian the name of the elder brother namely Arvind Singh is mentioned and his age is given as 30 years, which goes to show that the version of the petitioner is correct. The entry of date of birth as 31.12.1962 is completely arbitrary and without any documentary evidence and there is tampering in the date of birth mentioned in Form B by putting date in the entry. He would further submit that the petitioner has passed the matriculation examination in December, 1986 from Prayag Mahila Vidyapeeth which is recognized by the Board of Education, Bihar as such, she is a literate employee, therefore, her age should have been assessed by the Age Determination Committee as per Instruction No. 76. He would further submit that she has submitted School Leaving Certificate issued by District Education Superintendent Begusrai dated 18.07.2000 in which also her date of birth has been mentioned as 07.08.1969 as such, the date of birth recorded by the respondent dated 31.12.1962 is illegal and would pray for allowing the petition. To substantiate his submission, he would refer to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. & others Vs. Chhota Birsa {(2014) 12 SCC 570}, State of Orissa Vs. Dr. Bina Pani Devi & others {AIR 1967 SC 1269} & Sukalu Ram Vs. Union of India & others {SCC Online M.P. 2010 Page No. 437}. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/SECL would submit that the petitioner has not filed any document which has been issued prior to her appointment to demonstrate that her date of birth is 07.08.1969. He would further submit that in the appointment letter as well in the Form B Register her date of birth has been recorded as 34 as on 31.12.1996 and which has been accepted by the petitioner, as such, at the fag end of her service she cannot claim change of her date of birth in the service record. He would further submit that the petitioner was given dependent employment treating to be illiterate dependent now at the fag end of career, she intended to be treated as literate dependent which cannot be considered and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. To substantiate his submission he would refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ramesh Chandra Shah vs. Anil Joshi {AIR 2023 SC 1613}, Seema Ghosh vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. {2006 (7) SCC 722}, Pandu vs. C.M.D. {AIR Online 2019 MP 592} and Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Shyamkishore Singh {AIR 2020 SC 940}. Page 11 of 17 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with upmost satisfaction. 8. On above stated factual position, the point to be determined by this Court is:- “Whether the petitioner can be allowed to change date of birth on the basis of educational certificate to be treated as literate employee?” 9. To appreciate the point emerged for determination, it is expedient for this Court to go through with Instruction No. 76 which has been issued as per the NCWA II executed between the Coal Company and their Union. The Instruction provides for determination/verification of age of employee of illiterate/literate employees. The Instruction No. 76 provides that in case of existing literate employees, the age is to be determined according to matriculation certificate or higher secondary certificate issued by recognized university or board or by middle class certificate issued by board of education and/or department of Public Instruction and the admit card issued by the aforesaid bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said university/ board/ institution prior to the date of employment. So far as illiterate person, the age should be determined as per Clause C of the Instruction which provides constitution of Age Determination Committee/ Medical Board. This Clause further provides that in case of the employee whose date of birth cannot be determined in accordance with the procedure mentioned in B (i)(a) or B(i)(b). The date of birth recognized in the records of the company namely Form B register, C&PF records and Identity Cards is to be treated final provided that where there is a variation in the age recorded in the records mentioned above, the matter will be referred to the Age Determination Committee/ Medical Board constituted by the management. 10. In light of the Instructions and the records available on records, the case of the petitioner has to be examined by this Court. From the service record annexed by the respondent/SECL, it is quite vivid that the petitioner was given dependent employment by the respondent on 12.05.1997 as General Category Majdoor illiterate employee after medical examination, her age appears to be 34 years and in the service record, the age of the petitioner mentioned by her husband is 25 years on 09.10.1987 and as per the marksheet issued by Prayag Mahila Vidyapeeth the petitioner appeared in the matriculation examination, her date of birth is mentioned as 07.08.1969. The petitioner has also submitted her affidavit for obtaining dependent employment wherein she has mentioned the date of birth of her daughter as 12 years, son 7 years, daughter 4 years & daughter 2 years. Thereafter, she has also submitted Attestation Form wherein her date of birth has been mentioned as 31.12.1962. The respondent vide its circular dated 11.12.1996 has sanctioned the appointment order of the petitioner while considering the age recorded in the office document such as proposal, affidavit, LTC Form etc. of the female dependent will not be taken as correct age in case of literate female dependent i.e. those who are below matriculation. In such cases, the age of female dependent is to be determined by the Special Age Determination Committee consisting of Area Medical Head, Area Regional Head, Finance Head & Staff Officer (Ministerial). After verifying the record, she was sent for medical examination on 26.12.1996 and after medical examination she was appointed as General Majdoor Category-I on 20.05.1997 as illiterate employee and as per service record, her date of birth has been mentioned as 31.12.1962 and she has also submitted her signature and in the relieving order dated 28.02.1998 and Last Pay Certificate 18.03.1998, her date of birth has been mentioned as 31.12.1962. The petitioner has also submitted particulars of her family, Form No. PS-4, LTC Form wherein also she has put her date of birth as 31.12.1962 and age of her daughters/son have been mentioned as 13, 9, 6 & 4 years respectively. 11. From the above stated referred document, it is quite vivid that there is no dispute about the date of birth mentioned as 31.12.1962 in the service record of the petitioner maintained by the respondent being treated as illiterate existing worker, the age so mentioned in the records, has to be treated as final as such, it is not required for the respondents to refer the matter to the Age Determination Committee/ Medical Board constituted by the management. As such, there is no illegality in rejecting the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 07.05.2021 treating her date of birth to be 31.12.1962. 12. Now the submission made by the petitioner that in the mark- sheet issued by Prayag Mahila Vidyapeeth wherein the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 07.08.1969 and it is recognized by the Bihar Education Board, is being considered by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner to substantiate this submission, has filed Annexure P/22 i.e. order issued by the Government of Bihar dated 06.01.1987 recognizing the Prayag Mahila Vidyapeeth, Allahabad as recognized board. This submission cannot be considered by this Court as the Clause-V of the circular provides that examination passed by the Prayag Mahila Vidyapeeth will be recognized subject to the condition that the candidate should have passed the examination of English only at the standard level from any recognized Indian School or Board or should have passed the qualification test of the level of recognized Universities or Board of Bihar in English dialogue composition and succinct writing but the petitioner has not filed any document to substantiate that she has passed the examination of english as provided in the order dated 06.01.1987 prior to her appointment on 20.05.1997. The petitioner has also submitted the duplicate school leaving certificate (Annexure P/2) issued on 18.07.2000 by the Head Master, Govt. Middle School, Begusrai. This cannot be considered to determine the age of the petitioner as 31.12.1962 as per the Instruction No. 76 in case of literate employees, the matriculation certificate or higher secondary certificate issued by the University/Board or middle pass certificate issued by the Board of Education or department of Public Instruction and admit card issued by the aforesaid bodies, is to be treated as corrected provided it has been issued prior to the date of employment. The duplicate School Leaving Certificate (Annexure P/2) issued by the Headmaster of the school on 18.07.2000 will not come in rescue of the petitioner for treating her date of birth as 07.08.1969 as it has been issued much after employment of the petitioner on 12.05.1997. Even otherwise, the same does not fall within the category of certificate issued by the university/ board or middle pass certificate issued by the Board of Education and or department of Public Instruction. As such, it is quite vivid that the petitioner is unable to establish that she has passed matriculation examination from a recognized board to be classified herself as literate employee and to direct the respondent to constitute Age Determination Committee. From the above submission, it is quite vivid that the petitioner was appointed as General Majdoor Category-I illiterate employee. 13. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of South Eastern Coalfields Limited & another Vs. Ram Niranjan Patel [Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21377/2024 (decided on 03.01.2024)] has considered the issue of age determination of employees of illiterate category and has held as under:- “Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, we are of the considered view that both the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court had not considered a relevant factor in this case, which was that the respondent was given appointment under the ‘illiterate category’, and it was specifically stipulated in Implementation Instruction No. 76 that the Date of Birth will not be changed. Now, the respondent claims that he was not illiterate at the time of his employment, but literate. In other words, the respondent has raised a false claim to get employment under the illiterate category. He cannot now be given the double benefit i) of being illiterate, which formed the basis of his employment, and ii) giving him the benefit of Date of Birth, which he now claims to be 09.10.1958, after an inordinate delay on the basis of some certificates, which he had deliberately not disclosed to his employer at the time of gaining employment.” For these reasons, we set aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court and allow the present appeal.” 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment in case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited (supra) to substantiate that the petitioner has raised dispute well within time and not at the fag end of her career or on eve of superannuation but was raised at earlier possible opportunity is concerned, there is no quarrel with this legal position in view of the specific facts projected by the petitioner and admitted by the respondents, therefore, the submission made by the respondents that the petitioner has filed this petition at the fag end of her career, deserves to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. 15. From the above submission and considering the law with regard to age determination particularly the fact that the petitioner was given employment on the post of General Majdoor Category-I illiterate dependent employee, she cannot turned around and pray for determining the age by constituting the Age Determination Committee as per the Instruction No. 76. Accordingly, it is held that the date of birth of the petitioner has been rightly recorded as 31.12.1962 in the entire service record. As such, the Point emerged for determination is answered against the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for in this writ petition. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Deshmukh KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2025.06.09 17:20:07 +0530