1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5218 of 2018 1 - Abdul Wahid S/o Abdul Hamid Aged About 56 Years Presently Working As Driver- Cum- Mechanic, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Quarter, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman Cum Managing Director, Head Quarter Seepat Road, Post Box No. 60, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director (Personnel), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Office Seepat Road, P. O. No. 60, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - General Manager (P And A), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Office Seepat Road, P. O. No. 60, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant Manager (Personnel/ N. E. E.), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Deputy General Manager, (Personnel/ N. E. E./ P. F. / Pension), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Senior Manager, (Personnel/ C.M.P.F./ Pension), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. CJK Rao, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. J.N. Nande, Advocate along with Mr. Akhil Bhoi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10.07.2025 2 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 02.04.2018 (Annexure P/1), wherein the respondent going to retire the petitioner on 30.09.2018 and further the letter dated 09/10.12.2015 (Annexure P/5) may also be set-aside. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to correct the date of birth in the service book of the petitioner as 08.05.1962. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate. 10.4 Cost of the petition.” 2. Mr. Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 08.05.1962, whereas, in the service record, the department entered it as 25.09.1958 and the notice intending retirement was issued on 02.04.2018, mentioning his date of retirement as 30.09.2018. He would further submit that initially, the petitioner was appointed as time rated Category-1 Casual Mazdoor under the respondents vide order dated 08.10.1986. He would also submit that later on, he was appointed against the sanctioned and vacant post of driver. He would contend that the petitioner moved an application before the respondent authorities on 22.07.2015 for correction of his date of birth from 25.09.1958 to 08.05.1962 on the basis of the school leaving certificate. He would further contend that the application so moved by the petitioner was rejected by the respondent authorities vide order dated 09/10.12.2015. He would also contend that the petitioner made representations before the respondent authorities but no action was taken. He would state that the notice intending the date of retirement was issued to the petitioner on 02.04.2018 and the petitioner got retired pursuant to the said notice on 30.09.2018. He would further state that the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 02.04.2018 along with the order dated 3 09/10.12.2015, whereby his representation was rejected. He would also state that the name of the petitioner was sponsored by the employment exchange where the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 08.05.1962, therefore, the respondent authorities were under an obligation to mention the correct date of birth in the service records. He would argue that the petitioner was never communicated the date mentioned in the service record by the respondent authorities and when the petitioner came to know about this fact, he moved a representation but it was rejected vide order dated 09/10.12.2015. He would also argue that the petitioner has been compelled to retire four years prior to the date of his actual retirement. He would pray to quash the notice dated 02.04.2018 & the order dated 09/10.12.2015. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose. He would submit that the petitioner has filed this petition for correction of date of birth at the verge of retirement. He would further submit that though the representation of the petitioner was rejected on 09.12.2015 but the said order was not challenged by the petitioner earlier. He would lastly submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner has already got retired from the services on 30.09.2018. This petition was filed on 07.08.2018 assailing the notice dated 02.04.2018 and the order dated 09/10.12.2015. The representation made by the petitioner for correction of date of birth from 25.09.1958 to 08.05.1962 was rejected by the respondent authorities on 09.12.2015 and the said order was not challenged by the petitioner earlier and it has been challenged in the present petition. It is contended by Mr. Rao that the name 4 of the petitioner was sponsored by the employment exchange but in the present petition, the petitioner has not placed any document to demonstrate this fact. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Casual Mazdoor General Category -1 but the date of birth is not mentioned in the said order of appointment. In the other service records, the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 08.05.1962 and accordingly, the notice reflecting the date of retirement was issued to the petitioner on 02.04.2018. The petitioner again waited for 4 months and filed this petition on 07.08.2018 and his retirement was due on 30.09.2018. 6. 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 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 5 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.” 7. 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: (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.” 8. 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:- 6 “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.” 9. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it can safely be held that the petitioner approached this Court for correction of date of birth at the fag end of service, which is not permissible, therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision taken by the respondent authorities. 10. Consequently, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha