Telangana High Court
Pasula Narsaiah, vs The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. And 3 … on 20 December, 2024
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.14187 OF 2010
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for the following relief:
“…to issue order/s or writ/s one more particularly in the nature of
Writ of Mandamus to declaring the action of the respondents in not
conducting enquiry pursuant to the representation of the petitioner
dated 31.03.2003 vide file No.RG/Gdk.1/W-09/1092 as being illegal,
arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the
respondent authorities to cause necessary enquiry for correction of
date of birth of the petitioner as 11.12.1957 and be pleased to pass
such other order/s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the circumstances of the case.”
2. Heard Sri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Lingala Sudheer, learned counsel for the respondents.
Perused the material on record.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as
a coal filler at Singareni Collieries Company Limited (GDK No.1
Incline RGI) in Ramagundam, Karimnagar District. At the time of his
appointment, he did not provide any proof of his age as he was
uneducated and lacked official records such as educational
certificates. As a result, the respondent authorities recorded the
petitioner’s date of birth as 01.08.1950, based solely on his physical
appearance. However, the petitioner informed the respondent that
2
his actual date of birth is 11.12.1957 and brought to the notice of
the respondent about the discrepancy.
4. It is submitted that despite the petitioner’s repeated requests
to correct the date of birth, the respondent authorities did not take
immediate action. The petitioner submitted his first representation
in August, 2009, requesting corrections, but ignored this.
Further, on 31.03.2010, he submitted a second representation in
which he provided a birth certificate issued by the Panchayat
Secretary of his native village, Jayyaram, and also Revenue
Divisional Officer, Peddapalli issued proceedings dated 10.03.2010,
which is confirmed his dated of birth as 11.12.1957.
5 3rd respondent issued an advance intimation on 21.07.2009 to
the petitioner, stating that he would be attaining the age of
superannuation on 01.08.2010, and that he would be retiring from
service with effect from 31.07.2010, based on the incorrect date of
birth recorded in the official records.
6. Despite submitting the necessary evidence, such as the birth
certificate and several representations, the authorities did not take
any corrective action, and the petitioner continued to be faced with
the prospect of premature retirement and wrongful recording of the
date of birth and subsequent premature retirement would cause
3
severe hardship to him. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed
the present writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the
respondent authorities had correctly calculated the petitioner’s date
of birth, it would not be 1950, as recorded in the official records, it
should be 11.12.1957, as per the evidence adduced. The learned
counsel further submitted that the petitioner should not have been
retired prematurely on 31.07.2010, based on the incorrect date of
birth, and that the respondent authorities should have granted the
petitioner the benefits due to him, allowing him to continue in
service until he reaches the age of superannuation at 60 years.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, although
the representations submitted by the petitioner were made at the
fag end of his service. After being informed of his impending
retirement, the petitioner created the certificates, specifically the
one dated 10.03.2010. The learned counsel further submitted that
the certificate issued by the Panchayat Secretary on 13.03.2010 is
invalid, as the Panchayat Secretary is not authorized to issue such
certificates.
9. Learned counsel for respondents has relied on the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where the correction of the date of
birth cannot be considered at the fag end of service, as observed in
4
the case of State of Tamilnadu v. T.V. Venugopalan 1.
The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted
hereunder:
“The government servant having declared his date of birth as
entered in the service register to be correct, would not be
permitted at the fag end of his service career to raise a dispute as
regards the correctness of the entries in the service register. It is
common phenomenon that just before superannuation, an
application would be made to the Tribunal or court just to gain
time to continue in service and the Tribunal or courts are
unfortunately unduly liberal in entertaining and allowing the
government employees or public employees to remain in office.”
10. In the aforementioned judgment, it was held that a
Government servant who had previously declared the date of birth
entered in the service register to be correct would not be permitted
to correct at the fag end of his service. Similarly, in the present
case, the petitioner remained silent on the matter until
the authorities notified him regarding his impending retirement.
At that point he made an application for the correction of his date of
birth.
11. In Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited
v. T.P. Nataraja 2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
1
(1994) 6 SCC 302
2
2021 SCC OnLine SC 767
5
“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.”
12. In the aforesaid judgment, the application was rejected on the
grounds of delay and latches, particularly when made at the fag end
of service. Similarly, in the present case, the petitioner has made
the application at the fag end of his service.
13. The Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.161 of
2020 in the case of Erki Ramulu v. The Singareni Collieries
Company Limited, Kothagudem, is also placed on record, and
the relevant paragraphs Nos.6, 7 and 8 of the said judgment are
extracted hereunder:
“6. Before dealing with the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties, it would be apt to refer to two recent
judgments of the Supreme Court on this subject wherein it has
been categorically held that an application filed by an employee
for correction of his date of birth at the fag end of his career,
cannot be entertained and even if there is good evidence to
establish that the recorded date of birth is erroneous, a
correction cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
6
7. In Factory Manager Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v.
3
Laxman , the Supreme Court held as under:
“4. The affidavit filed by the employee indicated that he
was well aware that his date of birth had not been corrected by
the employer on the basis of representation that was allegedly
filed in the year 2003. Thus, it was not open to him to have
waited for ten years i.e. till his date of retirement and to file a
representation again and to approach the Labour Court. He slept
over his right and it is also doubtful whether he had submitted
representation. Even if he has submitted his representation, he
could not have waited for ten years for seeking correction in the
date of birth after his retirement. A perusal of the record also
indicated that once the Respondent himself had declared his date
of birth as 01.01.1956. There is no document in service book
indicating that he has ever declared his date of birth as
01.12.1956.”
8. In Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shyam Kishore Singh 4,
the Supreme Court has made the following observations:-
“9. This Court has consistently held that the request for
change of the date of birth in the service records at the fag end
of service is not sustainable. The learned Additional Solicitor
General has in that regard relied on the decision in the case of
State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Gorakhnath Sitaram
Kamble [(2010) 14 SCC 423] wherein a series of the earlier
decisions of this Court were taken note and was held as
hereunder:
“16. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has placed
reliance on the judgment of this Court in U.P. Madhyamik
Shiksha Parishad v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri [(2005) 11 SCC
465 : 2006 SCC (L & S) 96]. In this case, this Court has
considered a number of judgments of this Court and observed3
(2020) 3 SCC 419
4
(2020) 3 SCC 411
7
that the grievance as to the date of birth in the service record
should not be permitted at the fag end of the service career.
17. In another judgment in State of Uttaranchal v.
Pitamber Dutt Semwal [(2005) 11 SCC 477 : 2006 SCC (L
& S) 106] relief was denied to the government employee on the
ground that he sought correction in the service record after
nearly 30 years of service. While setting aside the judgment of
the High Court, this Court observed that the High Court ought not
to have interfered with the decision after almost three decades.
***
19. These decisions lead to a different dimension of the case
that correction at the fag end would be at the cost of a large
number of employees, therefore, any correction at the fag end
must be discouraged by the court. The relevant portion of the
judgment in Home Deptt. v. R. Kirubakaran [1994 Supp (1)
SCC 155 : 1994 SCC (L & S) 449 reads as under: (SCC pp.
158-59, para 7)
7. An application for correction of the date of birth [by a
public servant cannot be entertained at the fag end of his
service]. It need not be pointed out that any such direction
for correction of the date of birth of the public servant
concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others
waiting for years, below him for their respective
promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to
suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of
the correction of the date of birth, the officer
concerned, continues in office, in some cases for
years, within which time many officers who are
below him in seniority waiting for their
promotion, may lose their promotion forever. …
According to us, this is an important aspect, which cannot be lost
sight of by the court or the tribunal while examining the
grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date
of birth. As such, unless a clear case on the basis of materials
which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the
8
Respondent, the court or the tribunal should not issue a direction,
on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible.
Before any such direction is issued, the court or the tribunal must
be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person
concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been
made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within
the time fixed by any Rule or order. … the onus is on the
applicant to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his
service book.
10. This Court in fact has also held that even if there is
good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth
is erroneous, the correction cannot be claimed as a matter
of right. In that regard, in State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas
[(2011) 9 SCC 664] it is held as hereunder:
“8. It needs to be emphasised that in matters
involving correction of date of birth of a government
servant, particularly on the eve of his superannuation or at
the fag end of his career, the court or the tribunal has to
be circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing
direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the
service book at the time of entry into any government
service. Unless the court or the tribunal is fully satisfied on the
basis of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and that
such a claim is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed
or as per the consistent procedure adopted by the department
concerned, as the case may be, and a real injustice has been
caused to the person concerned, the court or the tribunal should
be loath to issue a direction for correction of the service book.
Time and again this Court has expressed the view that
if a government servant makes a request for correction of
the recorded date of birth after lapse of a long time of his
induction into the service, particularly beyond the time
fixed by his employer, he cannot claim, as a matter of
right, the correction of his date of birth, even if he has
good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth
is clearly erroneous. No court or the tribunal can come to
9
the aid of those who sleep over their rights (see Union of
India v. Harnam Singh [(1993) 2 SCC 162 : 1993 SCC (L &
S) 375].” (emphasis added)
14. The observation of the Division Bench of this Court in the
above-mentioned case regarding the correction of the date of birth,
an application filed by an employee for correction of his date of birth
at the fag of his career, cannot be entertained and even if there is
good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is
erroneous, a correction cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
In the present case, the petitioner made an application only when
he came to know about his retirement. Though he claims that his
date of birth is correct according to the birth certificate, it cannot be
considered at the fag end of service.
15. In view of the above, it can be stated that the petitioner made
an application for the correction of his date of birth at the fag end of
his service when he learned that he was about to retire.
The birth certificate provided by the Panchayat Secretary is not a
competent authority to issue such a certificate. Referring to the
Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.161 of 2020, the
crucial observation made by the Division Bench is that even if there
is good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is
erroneous, a correction cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
Therefore, in this case, even assuming that the date of birth was
10
wrongly entered in the records, such a correction cannot be
entertained at the fag end of service.
16. Accordingly, based on the above observations, the correction
of the date of birth cannot be considered as a matter of right, and a
change in the date of birth cannot be entertained at the fag end of
service.
17. In the light of the above observations, the writ petition is
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this
Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
___________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
Date: 20.12.2024
HFM