1 2026:CGHC:806-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 965 of 2025 Daulat Ram Chauhan S/o Shri Abhay Ram Chauhan Aged About 60 Years R/o B-56, New Colony, Katghora, Dhelwadih, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant 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 ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 07 . 01 .202 6 1. Heard Mr. Anand Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents/SECL. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellant, who was writ petitioner in the writ petition, has challenged the order dated 08.10.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.2012/2020 (Daulat Ram Chauhan Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant herein has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the petitioner / appellant had filed a Writ Petition bearing WPS No.1151/2020 challenging the notice dated 08.02.2020 wherein the petitioner was informed that he would be superannuating on 31 st 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 02.04.1964, 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, 3 which was rejected by a communication dated 25th April, 2020. and 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 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 Agreemet. Hence, the petitioner has filed another Writ Petition bearing WPS No. 2012 of 2020 and the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 08.10.2025. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the Appellant’s representation dated 05.12.2011 seeking correction of his date of birth was never decided by the Respondent Authorities. Subsequently, Respondent No. 4 itself recommended correction of the Appellant’s particulars in the seniority list on 17.05.2016, and a questionnaire regarding correction of date of birth was issued on 27.01.2020, to which the Appellant promptly responded, yet no action was taken. It was further submitted that the Appellant had consistently disclosed his correct date of birth as 02.04.1964, including in the application for grant of Sirdar Certificate. The competent authority under the Mines Act, 1952 also recorded the same date while issuing the Sirdar Certificate on 07.07.1997, and the employer duly scrutinized all documents at the time of his selection as Mining Sirdar on 15.12.1997. 4 Despite this, the Respondents arbitrarily superannuated the Appellant on 31.07.2020. Learned counsel contended that the Appellant was only matriculate and his thumb impression was taken at the time of entry into service, and the incorrect date of birth was recorded without his knowledge. His matriculation mark sheet, obtained prior to joining service, clearly records his date of birth as 02.04.1964, which conclusively establishes the correct date of birth, but the same was ignored and the entire fault was wrongly attributed to the Appellant. It was also urged that the Appellant raised his grievance as early as 2011 upon discovering the discrepancy, but the Respondent Authorities failed to act on his representation and, after a long lapse of time, unjustly blamed the Appellant. Further, as per Implementation Instruction No. 76 under the National Coal Wage Agreement, determination of age ought to have been made by the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board, which was never done in the present case. Learned counsel emphasized that the Appellant did not seek correction at the fag end of service; rather, he was under a bona fide belief that his correct date of birth was already recorded and approached the authorities immediately on discovering the error. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. v. Chhota Birsa Uranw, SLP (C) No. 34133 of 2011. 5. On the other hand, Learned counsel for the respondents/SECL 5 vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the Appellant and contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition after considering all relevant facts and settled principles of law. It was submitted that the date of birth of the Appellant was recorded in the service records at the time of his initial appointment and the Appellant accepted the same without any demur for several decades. The Appellant continued in service on the basis of the recorded date of birth and never raised any objection within a reasonable time. It was further contended that the alleged representation dated 05.12.2011 was highly belated, having been made after a long lapse of service, and the Appellant failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation for not seeking correction at the earliest point of time. Mere sending of representations does not confer any legal right, particularly when the claim pertains to correction of date of birth at an advanced stage of service, which is impermissible in law. Learned counsel submitted that the reliance placed on the matriculation certificate is misconceived, as the Appellant himself had acquiesced in the date of birth recorded in the service records and allowed the same to attain finality. It was argued that correction of date of birth cannot be claimed as a matter of right, especially when such correction would have the effect of extending the tenure of service. The Respondents acted strictly in accordance with the service records while superannuating the Appellant on 31.07.2020, and no arbitrariness or illegality can be attributed to 6 their action. It was also contended that the Appellant failed to establish that the date of birth was recorded without his knowledge or consent. The plea that his thumb impression was taken and that he was unaware of the recorded date of birth is an afterthought and cannot be accepted at this belated stage. The recommendations or internal communications relied upon by the Appellant do not amount to a final decision or determination of age and cannot override the duly maintained service records. With regard to Implementation Instruction No. 76 under the National Coal Wage Agreement, learned counsel submitted that the provision is not automatically attracted in every case and, in the absence of a timely and bona fide dispute raised at the inception of service, there was no requirement to constitute an Age Determination Committee or Medical Board. The learned Single Judge rightly held that the Appellant approached the Court at the fag end of service, and therefore no interference was warranted. Learned counsel further submitted that the judgment relied upon by the Appellant in M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable on facts and does not apply to the present case. Accordingly, it was urged that the appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7. It is not in dispute that the date of birth of the appellant was recorded in the service records at the time of his entry into service 7 and remained unchanged throughout his service tenure. The appellant continued in service for several decades on the basis of the said recorded date of birth and accepted all service benefits accordingly, without raising any effective or timely objection. The plea that the date of birth was recorded without his knowledge or consent cannot be accepted at this belated stage, particularly in the absence of cogent and contemporaneous material to substantiate such a claim. 8. The Court finds merit in the submission of the respondents that a claim for correction of date of birth, if entertained at an advanced stage of service, would have the effect of extending the service tenure and unsettling settled service records, which is impermissible in law. Even though the appellant claims to have made a representation in the year 2011, the same was admittedly made after a substantial lapse of time from the date of appointment and cannot be said to be within a reasonable period. Mere pendency or non-disposal of representations does not create any enforceable right in favour of the Appellant. 9. The reliance placed by the appellant on the matriculation certificate and other documents cannot override the long-standing and accepted service records, which had attained finality. The internal correspondence, recommendations, or issuance of questionnaires by the respondent authorities do not amount to a final determination of age nor confer any vested right upon the appellant. Similarly, the provisions of Implementation Instruction 8 No. 76 under the National Coal Wage Agreement do not mandate constitution of an Age Determination Committee or Medical Board in cases where the employee has not raised a bona fide dispute regarding age at the inception of service. The learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the facts and the settled legal position that courts should be slow in entertaining disputes relating to correction of date of birth raised at the fag end of service. The judgment relied upon by the appellant has rightly been held to be distinguishable on facts and does not advance the appellant’s case. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to make out any ground for interference with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra