1 2025:CGHC:50037 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2012 of 2020 1 - Daulat Ram Chauhan S/o Shri Abhay Ram Chauhan Aged About 55 Years R/o B-56, New Colony, Katghora, Dhelwadih, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., 2 - Director Personnel South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., 3 - Regional/ Area Manager Personnel South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Korba Region, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., 4 - Mining Manager Dhelwadih, Singhali, Bagdeva Sub-Region, Post Office Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Anand Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Order on Board 08/10/2025: 1. Challenge in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 25.4.2020 whereby the respondent-authority has not corrected the date of birth of KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2025.10.08 17:51:23 +0530 2 the petitioner which ought to have been determined as 2.4.1964 on the basis of matriculation certificate, as the respondent authority has superannuated the petitioner by taking his date of birth which was recorded in his service record as 31st July 1960, without forwarding the case of the petitioner to the Age Determination Committee to consider the claim of the petitioner in view of Implementation Instructions No.76 of the National Coal Wage Agreement. 2. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier, the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition bearing WPS No.1151/2020 challenging the notice dated 8.2.2020 wherein the petitioner was informed that he would be superannuating on 31st July, 2020, whereas the petitioner has already filed an application for correction of his date of birth on 5th December, 2011 on the basis of matriculation certificate wherein the date of birth has been recorded as 2.4.1964, which was forwarded by the concerned authority on 17th May, 2016. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with a direction to decide the representation within the stipulated period of time. Thereafter, the Employer did not agree with the claim of the petitioner/employee, as at the time of employment, the petitioner mentioned his category as ‘illiterate person’ and has also put his thumb impression when he joined the services on 30th July, 1987. After a substantial period of time i.e. after 24 years, the petitioner has raised a claim that he was literate at the time of employment, which was 3 rejected by a communication dated 25th April, 2020. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not suppressed anything at the time of employment and at the time of employment, his thumb impression has been obtained without the knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner has duly replied the questionnaire, which was forwarded by the respondent authorities vide communication dated 27.1.2020 regarding his representation for correction of date of birth. Learned counsel would further submit that for obtaining Sirdar Certificate, qualification of matriculation is the essential eligibility criteria. In the application form for grant of Sirdar Certificate, the petitioner has disclosed his date of birth as 2.4.1964. Under the Mines Act, 1952, the competent authority while issuing Sirdar Certificate on 7th July, 1997 mentioned his date of birth as 2.4.1964, and the employer has duly scrutinized all documents for the purpose of selection of Mining Sirdar on 15th December, 1997. When the petitioner came to know after publication of gradation list that his date of birth has wrongly been recorded in the said list and his category has also been wrongly mentioned, he has preferred a representation for correction of the same. Lastly, learned counsel would submit that as per the circular issued pursuant to the Implementation Instructions No.76 under the National Coal Wage Agreement, age should be determined by the Age Determination Committee/Medical 4 Board, but the said exercise has not been undertaken and the representation preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner was appointed under the illiterate category and he declared himself as illiterate by putting his thumb impression while joining his service on 30th July, 1987. However, after the lapse of considerable period, the petitioner has raised the claim that he was literate at the time of employment. The petitioner has filed a writ petition only at the fag end of his service career, as in his service record, his date of birth has been recorded as per the Implementation Instructions No.76 on the basis of date of birth which was determined by the Colliery Medical Officer. Learned counsel for the respondents would refer to the Implementation Instructions No.76 to submit that in the cases of appointees not covered under the clauses mentioned in the Implementation Instructions No.76, the date of birth will be determined by the Colliery Medical Officer keeping in view any documentary and other relevant evidence as produced by the appointee. Date of birth as determined shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances. He would submit that similar issue came for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of South Eastern Coalfields Limited & Anr. Vs. Ram Niranjan Patel { SLP (C) No.21377/2024} and vide order dated 3.1.2024, the Hoin’ble Supreme Court has materially observed that when the employee was given appointment under the 5 illiterate category and it was specifically stipulated in the Implementation Instructions No.76 that the date of birth will not be changed, the employee could not be allowed for correction of his date of birth as literate category. The present writ petition being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 6. In the matter of Ram Niranjan Patel, referred to above, the respondent was appointed under the illiterate category and after 17 years of service, he raised a claim that he was literate at the time of employment on the basis of Board’s certificate. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while allowing the Appeal filed by the SECL has materially observed that the respondent was given appointment under illiterate category and it was specifically stipulated in Implementation Instructions No.76 that 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. 6 7. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, as per the service record at the time of joining on 30th July, 1987, the petitioner declared himself as illiterate person and has also put his thumb impression. As per the petitioner’s claim, the said fact came to his notice only when seniority list was published. Thereafter the petitioner had moved a representation for correction in date of birth on 5th December, 2011 i.e. after the lapse of 24 years. When the explanation was sought by the employer, the petitioner has disclosed that the employee of the respondent Organization without his knowledge obtained his thumb impression and he was not aware that in his service book, he mentioned his category as illiterate and that his date of birth has wrongly been recorded as 31st July, 1960. 8. Case of the present petitioner is similar to that of the issue came before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Niranjan Patel, referred to above and as such, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take benefit of correction of his date of birth, and secondly, at the time of employment, he had mentioned as illiterate category. 9. Furthermore, in the matter of Ram Niranjan Patel, referred to above, the writ Court and the Division Bench while hearing the Writ Appeal, referred the case of the petitioner, in view of the dispute regarding age, to the Age Determination Committee, as per the Implementation Instructions No.76, which was challenged by the SECL before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while allowing the appeal of the SECL, 7 observed that sending the petitioner to the Age Determination Committee is not good. Therefore, observation made by this Court on 10th July, 2020 loses its efficacy. 10.For the foregoing, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Barve (