1 2025:CGHC:6629 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 118 of 2025 1 - Anil Kumar Prasad S/o Late Sonelal Aged About 34 Years R/o Mq-231, Shakti Nagar, Post- Gevra Project, Tehsil- Katghora, District- Korba, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Head Quarters, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, C.G. 2 - General Manager (Personnel / Manpower) South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Head Quarters, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, C.G. 3 - General Manager South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Gevra Area, Gevra Project, District- Korba, C.G. 4 - Deputy General Manager (Personnel) South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Gevra Area, Gevra Project, District- Korba, C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. K. K. Shrivastava, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 05/02/2025 1. The petitioner has challenged legality and sustainability of the order dated 01.09.2021 passed by respondent No. 4 stating that age of petitioner is found to be 37 years and 6 months by the Age Determination Committee while rejecting candidature of petitioner for dependent employment. Service records of father of petitioner as well as other admissible statutory documents of petitioner 2 including Mark-sheet and Transfer Certificate are showing date of birth of petitioner to be 15.08.1986. However, while passing aforesaid order, respondents have held petitioner to be more than 35 years, contrary to their own document i.e. National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) Implementation Instruction No. 76. When father of petitioner died on 27.12.2019, before that, during course of his service, name of petitioner was declared to be dependent in the official records of the respondents. After death of father of petitioner, he filed relevant documents seeking dependent employment before respondent authorities which has been rejected vide order dated 01.09.2021 which is illegal and arbitrary. 2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs : “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 01.09.2021 (Anneuxre P-1) issued by the respondent No. 4. 10.3. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to grant employment to the petitioner being dependent of his father as per the Social Security Scheme as envisaged under the National Coal Wage Agreement from the date of his application. 10.4. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent Company to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner as per the provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement. 10.5. The Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to direct the respondent company to pay compensation to the petitioner and take disciplinary action against the officials for unnecessarily denying and delaying the 3 petitioner's valuable right. 10.6. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.” 3. Learned counsel for petitioner would submits that entire admissible documents comes to show that date of birth of petitioner is 15.08.1986 which is recorded in each and every admissible documents. It is further contention of learned counsel for petitioner that according to documents i.e. National Coal Wages Agreement (VI), dependent employment can be given to the person while determining their age on the basis of their documents, however, said Implementation Instruction No. 76 has not been followed by respondents and they have deviated from their own Implementation Instruction and have illegally passed order stating that as per Age Determination Committee, age of petitioner has been determined as more than 37 years, as such petitioner is not entitle to get dependent employment in place of his father. 4. Learned counsel for respondents have filed return in which it has been stated that date of birth of petitioner is mentioned as 15.08.1986 as per Transfer Certificate of Class 8th and it cannot be taken into consideration. According to NCWA, dependent employment can be given to a person having age of less than 35 years, as such petitioner is not entitle to get said benefit. It is contention of learned counsel for respondents that recently a circular dated 06.01.2025 has been issued by respondents – SECL on the basis of 266th meeting of Committee of Functional 4 Directors held on 04.01.2025, according to which, circular shall be applicable and effective from the ADC process conducted in SECL from 20th of November, 2024 and shall supersede circulars / guidelines etc. issued earlier, in connection with age determination of candidates being considered for employment under Provisions of NCWA (dependent employment) and under R&R policy (land oustees employment), as such impugned order has rightly been passed and petitioner is not entitled to get dependent employment as he has crossed upper age limit of 35 years. It is further contention of learned counsel for respondents that petitioner has approached this Court quite belatedly on 10.12.2024 i.e. almost five years after death of his father. Thus, the petition of the petitioner on the ground of delay and laches is not liable to be dismissed. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has filed this application for dependent employment way back on 20.01.2020, however, it has been decided on 01.09.2021. Thereafter, petitioner has filed various applications and representations before concerned authority stating therein that petitioner is illegally being denied dependent employment. He has also submitted that similar and identical persons have been given dependent employment, as such, he may also be given dependent employment but, it has not been considered. However, when petitioner came to know about passing of order dated 24.09.2024, he approached this Court and has filed this petition. Looking to the fact that the petitioner is wholly dependent upon his 5 father and due to COVID-19, he was unable to approach authority as well as this Court and as such there are reasonable reason for approaching this Court in some belated stage. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the petition. 7. Admittedly, date of birth of petitioner is recorded in the Transfer Certificate of Class 8th as 15.08.1986 which was issued way back on 08.06.2001 by the concerned Head Master of the School. Date of birth of the petitioner mentioned in the identity cards i.e. P.A.N. card and Elector Photo Identity Card, Election Commission of India, same date of birth has been recorded. Further, according to Sub-Clause (ii) of Clause (A) of Implementation Instruction No. 76 of NCWA, determination of age at the time of appointment in case of Non-matriculates but educated person are on the basis of school leaving certificate. Relevant portion is reproduced below for ready reference : “ii) Non-matriculates but educated. In the case of appointees who have perused studies in a recognized educational institution, the date of birth recorded in the School Leaving Certificate, shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances.” 8. From perusal of the aforesaid clause, it is crystal clear that for consideration of age of petitioner, who is educated up to Class 8th, is to be considered on the basis of School Leaving Certificate which shall be treated as correct date of birth. The said School Leaving Certificate has been issued way back on 08.06.2001 as 6 such, it cannot be disbelieved. So far as submission made by learned counsel for respondent that recently circular dated 06.01.2025 is applicable from 20th of November, 2024 is concerned, after death of father of petitioner i.e. on 27.11.2019 and further since petitioner has moved an application for dependent employment way back on 20.01.2020, as such this circular would not be applicable with retrospective effect and the same cannot be considered for determination of age of petitioner by the Age Determination Committee as per aforesaid circular. 9. The dispute with respect to age has been considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court in various occasions. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors. Vs. Chhota Birsa Uranw, reported in (2014) 12 SCC 570 has observed thus : “15. As noted by us, the respondent in 1987 on coming to know of the wrong recording of his date of birth in his service records from the nomination form sought rectification. Therefore, such rectification was not sought at the fag end of his service. We have further noticed that the High Court duly verified the genuineness of the school leaving certificate on the basis of a supplementary affidavit filed by Shri Dilip Kumar Mishra, Legal Inspector of the appellant Company on 6-9-2010 before the High Court. It has been admitted in the said supplementary affidavit that the school leaving certificate has been verified and has been found to be genuine. We have further noticed that Implementation Instruction 76 Clause (i)(a) permits rectification of the date of birth by treating the date of birth mentioned in the school leaving certificate to be correct provided such certificates were issued by the 7 educational institution prior to the date of employment. The question of interpreting the words “were issued” was correctly interpreted, in our opinion, by the High Court which interpreted the said words for the purpose of safeguarding against misuse of the certificates for the purpose of increasing the period of employment. The High Court correctly interpreted and meant that these words will not apply where the school records containing the date of birth were available long before the starting of the employment. The date of issue of certificate actually intends to refer to the date with the relevant record in the school on the basis of which the certificate has been issued. A school leaving certificate is usually issued at the time of leaving the school by the student, subsequently a copy thereof also can be obtained where a student misplaces his said school leaving certificate and applies for a fresh copy thereof. The issuance of fresh copy cannot change the relevant record which is prevailing in the records of the school from the date of the admission and birth date of the student, duly entered in the records of the school.” 10. Recently, Single Bench of this Court has decided a matter with respect to dispute of age in case of Harpal Singh vs. S.E.C.L. and others in W.P.S. No. 3201/2021 vide order dated 24.09.2024, in which, it has been held as under : “12. In the aforementioned facts of the case, submission of learned counsel for the respective parties, as the respondents have not considered the documents available in the department i.e.‘Attestation Form’ and the other documents of the school issued prior to the date of appointment , submitted by the petitioner mentioning the date of birth, the impugned letter Annexure P-1 is not sustainable and is quashed. Respondents 8 are directed to re-consider the application for correction of date of birth of the petitioner in the light of documents available with respondent department submitted by the petitioner along with application and details with ‘Attestation Form’ submitted before joining the service and thereafter to pass an order afresh on the application for correction of date of birth submitted by the petitioner.” 11. In light of aforesaid decisions and submissions advanced by respective counsel and further considering document as well as Implementation Instruction, applicable at the time of death of father of petitioner as well as on the date of filing of application i.e. 20.01.2020, this Court is of the opinion that impugned order passed by respondent authorities is per se illegal and not in accordance with law and policy of respondents Company. Age of petitioner cannot be determined by Age Determination Committee and it can be determined only on the basis of School Leaving Certificate as petitioner is educated but has not passed matriculation examination. Reasons assigned in the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary as such impugned order dated 01.09.2021 is hereby quashed. 12. Respondents are directed to consider case of petitioner for grant of dependent employment in accordance with law, expeditiously preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of production of this order. 13. With the aforesaid observation, writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna