1 2025:CGHC:32877 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P(S) No.4887 of 2018 Matukdhari Yadav S/o Jamuna Prasad Aged About 59 Years Occupation - Retired Category - III, S.L.P Central Hospital Vishrampur Area, SECL Vishrampur Area, House No.163 Yadavpara, Ganeshpur, Silphili, Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coal Field Limited, Through The Chairman Cum Managing Director, Seepat Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The General Manager SECL Area Vishrampur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Regional Personnel Manager, SECL Vishrampur Area Vishrampur Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Establishment Incharge SECL Vishrampur Area Vishrampur Chhattisgarh., 5 - The Age Determination Committee, Through The General Manager (P & A) SECL, Seepat Road, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.07.16 16:24:13 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Shri Siddharth Pandey appears on behalf of Shri Mahesh Pandey, Advocates. For Respondents : Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 15.07.2025 1. Heard. 2. This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the decision of Age Determination Committee (for short ‘the ADC’) dated 11.01.2018 and order dated 27.03.2017 passed by Respondent No.4 whereby, the said Committee has determined the date of birth of the Petitioner as 18.09.1957 and accordingly, the Petitioner was superannuated from his services in the afternoon of 30.09.2017 and further assailed that his correct date of birth is 05.06.1958 and sought a direction for the Respondent authorities to pay his salary from 01.10.2017 to 05.06.2018 along with interest. 3. Laconically stated, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner was appointed on the post of General Mazdoor Category-1 under the employment of Respondents vide order dated 29.10.1992 and his case is that at the time of entry into service, a declaration was given by him on 20.11.1992 in Form-’A’ of Coal Mines Provident Fund that his date of birth is 05.06.1958. Similarly in Form-’O’, same date of birth has been mentioned and even in the salary slip issued for the month of January, 1994 also, his date of birth was mentioned as 05.06.1958 and the date 3 of retirement as 05.06.2018. However, vide communication dated 27.03.2017, as per the information available on the service record, the Petitioner was intimated that he has completed service of 60 years on 30.09.2017 and as per the provisions of NCWA-IX, on the said date, he shall be superannuated. After receipt of the said communication, the Petitioner made a representation but the Respondent-authorities did not pass any order to this effect, therefore, he was constrained to file W.P(S) No.2333/2017, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 12.09.2017 wherein, taking into consideration that there are variances in the record with regard to his date of birth maintained by the Respondents-authorities, the matter was referred for determination of his age either by the Medical Board or by the ADC and the relevant paras i.e. 5 & 6 read as under:- “5. From the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, pleadings and various documents regarding date of birth of the petitioner filed by both the sides, this Court finds that there are variation in records maintained by respondent authorities, with regard to the age of the petitioner. In a situation like this respondents have laid down the procedure to be followed for determination of the correct date of birth, as contained in implementation instructions No. 76 produced before the Court for perusal and consideration to record perusal. The said instruction in clause (B)- ii provides that if there is no variation in records, such cases will not be reopened unless there is a very glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the Management. It further provides that after being satisfied on the merits of the case appropriate action for correction through Determination Committee/Medical Board may be taken. 6. It is found that there are variation in the official records only. Therefore, it would be proper that the authorities examine the entire case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with the implementation instruction 76 with reference to the documents which have been referred in this case, filed by the petitioner as well as by the respondent 4 which shall receive due consideration and thereafter the authority shall take appropriate decision as to which of the records maintained by respondents are authentic so as to act upon. If the authority finds it necessary, it may also refer to the matter either to the Medical Board or to the Age Determination Committee, as may be considered necessary. The petition is finally disposed off. The decision shall be taken within an outer limit of 4 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.” Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner has preferred W.A No.538/2017 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 28.06.2018, thereafter, the ADC has determined that the age and date of birth of the Petitioner on 18.09.1957 is correct and final. Hence this Petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the finding recorded by the ADC is erroneous as the Petitioner falls under the Category-B of Implementation Instruction No.76 and there is no need for him to appear for radiological test and as such, he has rightly refused to appear for the said test and in such backdrop, this Petition may be allowed. 5. Alternatively, learned Counsel for the Respondents/SECL submits that date of birth recorded in the service record is a question of fact. He further submits that when the ADC being a fact finding body, after due enquiry, has reached to a conclusion, unless the Petitioner has shown any infirmity in the decision making process, the said finding cannot be interfered as the scope of interference in the writ jurisdiction is limited. He placed reliance on the matter of G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.,West Bengal vs. Shib Kumar Dushad and others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 696 and referred to paras-17 to 20 and 24 which read as follows:- 5 “17. The date of birth of an employee is not only important for employee but for the employer also. On the length of service put in by the employee depends the quantum of retiral benefits he would be entitled to. Therefore, while determining the dispute in such matters courts should bear in mind that a change of the date of birth long after joining service, particularly when the employee is due to retire shortly, will upset the date recorded in the service records maintained in due course of administration should not generally be accepted. In such a case the burden is heavy on the employee who comes to the court with the case that the date of birth in the service record maintained by the employer is untrue and incorrect. The burden can be discharged only by producing acceptable evidence of a clinching nature. We are constrained to make this observation as we find that in a large number of cases employees who are on the verge of retirement raise a dispute regarding correctness of the date of birth entered in the service record and the courts are inclined to pass an interim order for continuance of such employee beyond the date of superannuation on the basis of the entry of date of birth in the service record. Such a situation cannot be commended for the reason that the court in passing such an interim order grants a relief to the employee even before determining the issue regarding correctness of the date of birth entered in the service record. Such interim orders create various complications. Anticipated vacancy for which the employee next in the line has been waiting does not materialise, on account of which the junior is denied promotion which he has all along been led to believe will be his due on the retirement of the senior. 18. At this stage we may take note of certain instructions which were issued by the appellant laying down the procedure for determination/ modification of date of birth of employee. The document is styled as: "Implementation Instruction No.76 Procedure for Determination Verification of Age of Employees". 19. Its authenticity is not disputed by the parties. Indeed the respondent employee has filed this document as Annexure R-7 to the counter-affidavit filed in this court. Under para 'A' the manner of determination of age at the time of appointment is laid down. Under para 'B' are laid down the procedures to be followed in cases of determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees. Under sub-para (i) of para 'B' the case of the existing employee having a Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the recognised University or Board or Middle Form Certificate issued by the Board of Education and/or Department of Public Instruction should be treated as the correct date of birth provided the documents are issued by the University/Board prior to the date of the employment. Under sub-para (i)(b) of para 'B' it is provided that mining sirdarship, wind up engine or similar other statutory certificate where the Manager had to certify the date of birth will be treated as authentic. Provided that where both the documents mentioned in (i)(a) and (i)(b) above are available the date of birth in (i)(a) will be treated as authentic. In clause 6 (ii) of para 'B' it is specifically stated that wherever there is no variation in records such cases will not be reopened unless there is a very glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the management. The management, after being satisfied on the merit of the case will take appropriate steps for corrections through the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board. In 'C', 'D' and 'E' the procedures to be followed by the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board for determination of age of an employee are laid down. The provisions read as follows: "(C) Age Determination Committee/ Medical Board for the above will be constituted by the management. In the case of employees whose date of birth cannot be determined in accordance with the procedure mentioned in (B)(i)(a) or (B)(i)(b) above, the date of birth recorded in the records of the Company, namely, Form 'B' register, CMPF Record and Identity Cards (untampered) will be treated as final, provided that where there is a nomination 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 for determination of age. (D) Age determination: by the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board referred to above may consider their evidence available with the colliery management; and/or (E) Medical Board constituted for determination of age will be required to manage (sic assess) the age in accordance with the requirement of medical jurisprudence and the Medical Board will as far as possible indicate the accurate age assessed and not approximately." 20. From the provisions in the instructions referred to above, it is clear that in case of dispute over the date of birth of an existing employee who has neither a Matriculation Certificate/Secondary School Certificate nor a statutory certificate in which the Manager has certified the entry regarding the date of birth to be authentic the employer is to refer the matter to the Medical Board. Therefore, no fault can be found with the action taken by the appellant to refer the case of the respondent to Medical Board. The Medical Board as laid down in the instructions is to consider the matter on the evidence available with the colliery management and in accordance with the requirement of medical jurisprudence. As noted earlier, in the present case the Medical Board determined the age of the respondent to be 52 years in 1988 and the employer (appellant) accepted such determination. In the circumstances there was hardly any scope for the High Court to interfere with the date of birth as determined by the employer (appellant herein) and issue a writ of Mandamus that the date as claimed by the employee (the respondent herein) should be accepted. 24. On the analysis and the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, we have no hesitation to hold that the High Court erred in interfering with the date of birth/age of the respondent 7 as determined by the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2717 of 1994 and the judgment of the Division Bench, confirming the judgment of the Single Judge with a modification, are set aside. Writ petition stands dismissed. ...” He further submits that date of birth of the Petitioner was mentioned in the service book and the particulars of the family have been filed by the employer itself on 29.05.1998 wherein, the employee himself has declared his date of birth as 18.09.1957. He further submits that the report of the medical examination dated 11.09.1992, which has been filed by the Petitioner along with the Petition is a manipulated document and the original document is available in the service record wherein, there is no entry of the date of birth as 05.06.1958 and only the column shows that the age appears to be 35 and in Form-’O’, which has been annexed by the Petitioner, above the entry, the date of birth has been mentioned separately though there is no such column available in the said certificate. Lastly, it has been submitted that the Petition is bereft of any substance and therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record carefully. 7. Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, in the matter of SECL & Ors. Vs. Ikramuddin decided on 30.11.2023 in W.A No.384/2021 has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors. vs. Shyam Kishore Singh reported in (2020) 3 SCC 411 wherein, by placing reliance on the matter of State of M.P. vs. Premlal Shrivas reported in (2011) 9 SCC 664, it has 8 been observed that the correction of date of birth cannot be claimed as a matter of right particularly on the eve of superannuation or at the fag end of career and it has been materially observed as under:- “12. The Supreme Court, in Shyam Kishore Singh (supra) observed as under:- "10. This Court in fact has also held that even if there is good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is erroneous, the correction cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In that regard, in State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas, it is held as hereunder: (SCC pp. 667 & 669, paras 8 & 12) "8. It needs to be emphasised that in matters involving correction of date of birth of a government servant, particularly on the eve of his superannuation or at the fag end of his career, the court or the tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the service book at the time of entry into any government service. Unless the court or the tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and that such a claim is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed or as per the consistent procedure adopted by the department concerned, as the case may be, and a real injustice has been caused to the person concerned, the court or the tribunal should be loath to issue a direction for correction of the service book. Time and again this Court has expressed makes a request for correction of the recorded date of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond the time fixed by his employer, he cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth, even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. No court or the tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleepover their rights (see Union of India v. HarnamSingh). 12. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the delay of over two decades in applying for the correction of date of birth is ex facie fatal to the case of the respondent, 9 notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific rule or order, framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application could be filed. It is trite that even in such a situation such an application should be filed which can be held to be reasonable. The application filed by the respondent 25 years after his induction into service, by no standards, can be held to be reasonable, more so when not a feeble attempt was made to explain the said delay. There is also no substance in the plea of the respondent that since Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code does not prescribe the time-limit within which an application is to be filed, the appellants were duty bound to correct the clerical error in recording of his date of birth in the service book." 8. Further, in Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited vs. TP Nataraja & Ors decided on 21.09.2021 in Civil Appeal Nos.5720/2021 and 5721/21, the Supreme Court has observed at para- 10 as under:- “10. Considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court the law on change of date of birth can be summarized as under: (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.” Moreover, in the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. West Bengal vs. Shib Kumar Dushad and others (supra), it was held that once enquiry is made by the ADC following the procedure laid down in Implementation Instruction No.76, then the scope of interference by the writ Court is quite limited and the 10 High Court should not interfere with the date of birth as determined by the Employer/SECL. 9. 9. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it appears that the date of birth of the Petitioner is a question of fact and taking into consideration that there are variances in the earlier ground of limitation, the Respondent/authorities were directed to determine the age of the Petitioner by the ADC. After due enquiry, the ADC has reached to the conclusion that it has recorded the date of birth of the Petitioner as 18.09.1957 assigning the following reasons and the relevant para reads thus:- “Age Determination Committee having gone through the records adduced by Sri Matukdhari Yadav under the provisions of I.1.76 dt. 25.04.1988 issued under NCWA-III and circular/guidelines issued by CIL yide No.CIL/C-5(B)/MP/ADVR/2704 dt. 07.07.1992 and also that the judgment of Hon'ble High Court, has opined that- 1. The case of Sri yadav is within the ambit of Clause B(ii) of II 76 which pertains to "no variation in records". 2. He has raised the issue of date of birth after completion of 25 yrs. of service and at the fag end of service after receipt of retirement notice. 3. He could not produce any documentary proof of submission of educational qualification certificate for date of birth. 4. He has refused to appear before the Medical Specialist for radiological test. 5. In the original copy of IME Form 'O' dt.18.09.1992 his age was recorded as 35 years and DoB, was not recorded, where as in the photocopy of IME Form 'O' submitted by him DoB 05.06.1958 was also recorded, which shows that it was an afterthought and might have manipulated the record. 6. His name was recorded as "MATUKDHARI RAM" in the HSSC examination 1978 mark sheet whereas in the official records viz. 11 appointment letter, Form 'B', Service Book & IME Form 'O' his name was recorded as "MUTUKDHARI YADAV". He could not submit any justifiable reason/document for this difference in his name. Therefore, the age/date of birth of Sri Matukdhari Yadav recorded in IME Form 'O', Form B register and Service Register as 35 years as on 18.09.1992 i.e. DOB 18.09:1957 shall be treated as correct and final. Age Determination Committee determines the date of birth of Sri Matukdhari Yadav as 18.09.1957 (Eighteenth September Nineteen Fifty Seven).” 10. In view of the reasons assigned and the finding recorded with regard to the age of the Petitioner by the ADC, which is a finding of fact as also applying the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, this Court does not find any infirmity in the decision making-process undertaken by the ADC as the jurisdiction of the writ Court is confined to the decision-making process and it cannot interfere with the ultimate decision taken by the ADC. 11. Resultantly, the Writ Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE Priya