1 / 6 CGHC010282872026 2026:CGHC:36450-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 739 of 2026 Latora Das Chaudhary (Died) Through Lrs. Munni Bai Choudhary W/o Late Latora Das Choudhary Aged About 58 Years R/o Near Ram Mandir Navrojbad Tehsil Navrojabad District Umariya M.P. ... Appellant versus 1 – The General Manager South East Coalfields Limited Seepat Road Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G. 2 - The Director Personnel Manager SECL Seepat Tehsil and District Bilaspur C.G. 3 - The Deputy Personnel Manager Johila Area SECL Navrojabad Tehsil And District Umariya M.P. 4 - Age Determination Committee SECL Seepat Head Office, Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Aasha Nirmalkar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per, Bibhu Datta Guru, J. 17/08/2026 1. Heard on I.A. No.1, which is an application for condonation of delay in 2 / 6 filing the present appeal, as well as on the merits of the appeal. There is a delay of 96 days in preferring the present appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 26.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.4531 of 2014, whereby the writ petition preferred by the original writ petitioner seeking correction of his date of birth recorded in the service records came to be dismissed. During the pendency of the writ petition, the original writ petitioner, namely, Latora Das Chaudhary, an employee of South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL), died and, thereafter, his wife, namely, Munni Bai Choudhary, in his place, is prosecuting the present appeal. 4. (a) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the true scope and object of Implementation Instruction No.76 governing correction/determination of the date of birth. It is submitted that the appellant had placed before the authorities relevant documentary material, including the educational records, which, according to the appellant, demonstrated that the date of birth recorded in the service record was erroneous. It is further submitted that the Age Determination Committee failed to properly appreciate the documentary evidence and that the learned Single Judge also failed to consider the material in its proper perspective. On that basis, learned counsel submits that the order of the learned Single Judge deserves to be interfered with. 3 / 6 (b) It is further submitted on behalf of the appellant that the subsequent documentary evidence relied upon by the appellant could not have been discarded mechanically and that, where there is material demonstrating that the date of birth recorded in the service record is incorrect, the same ought to be corrected in accordance with the applicable instructions. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the appellant has made out a case for interference in intra-Court appeal. 5. (i) Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the date of birth recorded in the service record has remained the basis of the appellant's service throughout and that the appellant approached the authorities for correction of the same only subsequently. It is contended that the competent authority/ Age Determination Committee considered the material available on record in accordance with Implementation Instruction No.76 and there is no perversity or jurisdictional error in the decision so taken. (ii) Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the learned Single Judge has considered the relevant service records as well as the documentary material relied upon by the appellant and has rightly declined to interfere with the determination made by the competent authority. It is argued that a claim for correction of date of birth at a belated stage cannot be entertained merely on the basis of documents subsequently relied upon, particularly when the date of birth recorded in the service record had continued to operate for several decades. 4 / 6 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 7. A bare perusal of the record would manifest that the claim relates to correction of the date of birth recorded in the service record of the deceased employee. The learned Single Judge has considered the relevant service records, the documentary material relied upon by the appellant, the proceedings of the Age Determination Committee and the applicable Implementation Instruction No.76. The material on record does not demonstrate that the age determination made by the competent authority suffers from any perversity, illegality or violation of the applicable instructions. The learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere with the determination made by the competent authority. 8. The subsequent documents relied upon by the appellant also do not furnish any legally sustainable basis for directing alteration of the date of birth which had been recorded in the service record and had continued to operate for a substantial period. No jurisdictional error or manifest infirmity in the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge has been demonstrated before us so as to warrant interference in the present intra- Court appeal. 9. Bare perusal of Clause B(i)(a) of I.I. No. 76 categorically provides that the matriculation certificate or higher secondary certificate issued by a recognized University or Board of Middle Education and/or the Department of Public Instructions shall be treated as correct, provided that the same was issued by the competent authority prior to the date of employment. In the case at hand, it is manifest that the original writ 5 / 6 petitioner was appointed in SECL in November, 1981, at which time he had furnished his date of birth as 07/11/1954. However, subsequently, relying upon a matriculation certificate, which was issued much after his appointment in SECL, i.e., in April, 1988, wherein his date of birth was recorded as 22/06/1960, the appellant sought to alter the date of birth recorded in his service records. Thus, in terms of Clause B(i)(a) of I.I. No. 76, the said matriculation certificate, having been issued subsequent to the date of his appointment, could not have been relied upon for altering the date of birth recorded in his service records. For the sake of convenience, Clause B(i) (a) of the I.I. No. 76 is quoted below:- "B. Review/Determination of Date of Birth in respect of existing employee:- (i)(a) In the case of the existing employee matriculation certificate or higher secondary certificate issued by the recognized Universities or Boards of middle education and/or Department of Public Instructions and admit card issued by the aforesaid bodies should be treated as correct, provided they were issued by the said Universities/Boards/Institutions prior to the date of employment." Emphasis added... 10. In the matter of G.M., Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., West Bengal v. Shib Kumar Dushad and Others, 2000 (8) SCC 696, the Supreme Court held that once enquiry is made by the Age determination Committee following the procedure lad down in Implementation Instruction No. 76 then the scope of interference by the Writ Court is quite limited and the High Court should ot interfere with the date of birth as determined by the Employer/SECL and issue a writ of mandamus i.e. claimed by the 6 / 6 employee. 11. In the present case, it is also significant that the original writ petitioner had approached the competent authority for determination of his date of birth and, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the matter was duly considered by the Age Determination Committee in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Implementation Instruction No.76. The Committee, after considering the material available on record, affirmed the date of birth recorded in the service records as 07/11/1954. The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the Committee, while arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, acted in breach of the procedure prescribed under I.I. No.76 or that its finding suffers from perversity, mala fides or any jurisdictional error. In view thereof, no ground is made out for interference with the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, particularly when the appellant has failed to place any clinching or unimpeachable evidence warranting alteration of the date of birth recorded in the service records. 12. Thus, the appellant fails to make any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 26.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on merits. 13. Consequently, the writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/Gowri