Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Sudha Devi Singh vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited on 9 June, 2025
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Page 1 of 17
2025:CGHC:22599
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 4162 of 2021
Reserved On : 11.03.2025
Pronounced On : 09.06.2025
Smt. Sudha Devi Singh W/o Late Janardan Singh Aged About 51 Years
Occupation Ecg Technician Grade-C, Secl, Central Hospital, Hasdeo
Area, Manendrragarh, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner
versus
1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through The Chairman-Cum-
Managing Director, Seepat Road, Basant Vihar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh,
2 - The Director ( Personnel), S.E.C.L. Basant Vihar, Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
3 - The Chief General Manager, Secl, Baikunthpur, District-Koriya,
Chhattisgarh.
4 - The General Manager (P And A), Secl Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
5 - The Area Manager, Hasdeo Area, Secl, Baikuntpur, District-Koriya,
Chhattisgarh.
6 - The Personnel Manager, Central Hospital, Manendragarh, District-
Koriya, Chhattisgarh.
---Respondents
________________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate
________________________________________________________
Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
CAV ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing order dated
27.05.2021 (Annexure P/12) passed by respondent No. 4 by
Page 2 of 17
which the representation of the petitioner for correction of her
date of birth in the service record has been rejected.
2. The brief facts as projected by the petitioner are that :-
(A) The petitioner was initially appointed in SECL as General
Mazdoor Category-I on 12.05.1997 and subsequently, she was
promoted on the basis of her academic qualification on the post
of ECG Technician Grade-C, Central Hospital, Hasdeo Area. It
has been further contented that the date of birth of the petitioner
as per the school leaving certificate of Class 8th, the mark sheet
of Class 10th of Prayag Mahila Vidya Pith, is 07.08 1969. The
date of birth of the petitioner has been incorrectly entered in
service record as 31.12.1962 which was prepared in the year
1998. The petitioner for the first time came to know about the
wrong entry of the date of birth in the year 2000 and she moved
the application for correction of date of birth to the concerning
authorities thereafter she sent several reminders and
representations one after the another before the respondents,
which was not decided.
(B) She made fresh representation for rectification of the wrong
entry on 17.02.2015. Thereafter the several representations
dated 30.07.2016, 01.08.2016 were submitted. In furtherance of
the representations the respondent issued an office order to
conduct ADC for age determination vide order dated 17.07.2017.
In pursuance of the said order the ADC of the petitioner was
conducted on 18.07.2017. Copy of the ADC has not been
Page 3 of 17
provided to the petitioner, therefore, she filed the writ petition
before this Court for redressal of her grievances as WP(S) No.
5574/2020 which was disposed of by this Court on 01.02.2021
(Annexure P/10) directing the respondents to consider and
decide the representation of the petitioner within 60 days.
(C) In pursuance of the order passed by this Court fresh
representation was submitted on 12.02.2021. Thereafter,
respondent No. 4 decided the representation of the petitioner
and rejected the prayer of the correction of date of birth and held
that her date of birth is 31.12.1962. Aggrieved with the same, the
petitioner has filed present writ petition.
3. The respondent SECL has filed their return wherein they have
submitted that :-
(A) The instant petition deserves to be dismissed as an
alternative remedy of raising dispute under the Industrial Dispute
Act is available to the petitioner and on the count of delay and
latches in preferring the writ petition, as she has filed present
petition on 24.07.2021 only a year before her retirement.
Therefore, no change in date of birth can be made at the fag end
of service.
(B) It has been further contended that the petitioner was
appointed in service on 12.05.1997 as dependent employment
as General Majdoor Category-I and the petitioner first time made
a representation for correction of her date of birth in the service
record before the respondent authorities on 17. 02.2015 i.e. after
Page 4 of 17
about more than 17 years from joining of service. It is further
submitted that in the appointment letter of petitioner, it was
specifically mentioned that her age as 34 years as on
31.12.1996 as per special age determination committee. She
accepted the same without any objection and joined the service
on 20.05.1997 at Regional Work Shop Hasdev Area SECL. It is
further submitted that at the time of joining of service in the first
Form B Register of R.W.S Hasdev Area, the age of petitioner
was recorded as 34 years as on 31.12.1996 and the same was
accepted by the petitioner by putting her signature in Form-B
Register which is prepared immediately after her joining which is
a statutory record prepared under the Mines Act and Rules.
(C) It is further contended that the petitioner was given
dependent employment being widow of Shri Janardhan Singh of
South Jhimer Colliery, Hasdeo Area prepared in October 1987 in
which the name of his wife and daughter was recorded as Smt.
Sudha Devi, aged 25 years and Kumari Roshni aged 04 years as
on 01.04.1987 respectively Shri Janardhan Singh, who died on
12.05.1995 put his Left Thumb Impression/signed. After death of
Late Janardhan Singh on 12.05.1995, his wife Smt. Sudha Devi
i.e. the petitioner submitted an application on 25.08.1995 for
seeking appointment under the provision of dependent
employment of NCWA and she had submitted copy of Mark
sheet dated 12.07 1986 of Vidya Vinodani (Matriculation)
Examination of Prayag Mahila Vidyapith, Allahabad in which her
date of birth was mentioned as 07.08.1969. In the above
Page 5 of 17
application, the petitioner had enclosed the certificate dated
08.07.1995 issued by Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Dola, Dist
Anuppur (MP), certifying that Smt. Sudha Devi W/o Late
Janardhan Singh had four children, the eldest being Kumari
Roshni, aged 12 years. Similarly, in affidavit dated 12.07.1995 of
Smt. Sudha Devi, the age of her eldest daughter Kumari Roshni
was mentioned as 12 years.
(D) Before the appointment, the petitioner has submitted the
Attestation Form, in which in the Column 10, she was required to
mention details of her educational qualification showing place of
education with years in school and colleges. The petitioner
mentioned only regarding her Vidya Vinondani (Matriculation)
Examination as passed out from Prayag Mahila Vidyapith,
Allahabad in 1985. The claim of petitioner for dependent
employment was considered and sanction for employment of
petitioner was conveyed in which it was specifically mentioned
that “the age recorded in the Official documents of the deceased
employee Janardhan Singh is contrary to the proposal, affidavit
and other documents etc. of the female dependent, therefore,
the same will not be taken as the correct date of birth and treated
her as illiterate female dependent i.e. those who are below
Matriculate and opined that in such case, the age of the female
dependent is to be determined by the Special Age Determination
Committee consisting of Area Medical Head, Area Personnel
Head, Area Finance Head and Stall Officer (M) to the CGM/GM
of the Area. Accordingly, she was advised to be present in the
Page 6 of 17
Office of Dy. Chief Medical Officer Hasdeo Area on 31.12.1996 at
10:00 am for determination of her age. After completion of official
formalities the appointment letter dated 12.05.1997 was issued
to the petitioner offering appointment as General Mazdoor
Category-I and posted at Regional Work Shop Bijuri of Hasdev
Area S.E.C.L., in which the age of petitioner was specifically
mentioned as 34 years as on 31.12.1996 as per special age
committee dated 31.12.1996.
(E) Subsequently the petitioner was transferred to Central
Hospital Manendragarh from the R.W.S. Hasdev Area SECL. In
her relieving order dated 28.02.1998 and L.P.C. dated
18.03.1998, her date of birth was mentioned as 31.12.1962 The
petitioner joined in Central Hospital Manendragarh on
02.03.1998, where in Form-B Register her date of birth was
recorded as 31.12.1962. The above Form-B Register also bears
the signature of the petitioner.
(F) It is further contended that the Form PS-3 & PS-4 of Coal
Mines Pension Scheme of petitioner was prepared in the month
of May,1998, in which the petitioner herself mentioned her date
of birth as 31.12.1962 and put her signature and accepted the
same as correct. During the service tenure, the petitioner also
avail the L.T.C. /LL.T.C. claim, in which she mentioned her age
as 36 years, as on 28.03.1998 and age 47 years as on
September 2010, which is matched with her date of birth as
31.12.1962.
Page 7 of 17
(G) It is further submitted that the petitioner while working as
General Mazdoor Category-1, at Central Hospital, Manendragarh
after passing High School Certificate Examination MP State
Open School, Bhopal in 1999, submitted copy of her Marksheet
issued in Nov 1999, Roll No. 041082031, Date of birth
07.08.1969 in year 2000 and requested for giving proper posting.
(H) On consideration of repeated representations of petitioner for
correction of date of birth, the Age Determination Committee was
constituted who has wrongly recognized the date of birth of the
petitioner as 07.08.1969 on the basis of educational qualification
whereas the petitioner was appointed as General Category
worker illiterate. Due to discrepancy regarding date of birth in the
service record of her husband and the record submitted by her
and she was treated as Category- I illiterate workman as per the
Instruction dated 11.12.1996 which has been accepted by the
petitioner without any objection.
(I) It is further submitted that the marksheet (Annexure P/3)
issued by Prayag Mahila Vidyapeeth is not recognition from
Govt. of UP or from the Govt. of India whereas the Instruction
No. 76 issued in pursuance of NCWA with the representative of
Union provides that only the certificates issued by the recognized
educational institution university or board is valid for the
purposes of age determination. As such, constitution of Age
Determination Committee to examine her case was not
warranted and the age as assessed by Special Age Committee
i.e. 34 years on 31.12.1996 is the correct age of petitioner and
Page 8 of 17
does not warrants any interference therefore, would pray for
dismissal of the writ petition.
4. The petitioner filed rejoinder contending that instant petition does
not suffer any inordinate delay and when the petitioner came to
know about the wrong entry and manipulation in her service
record in the year 2000 then she forthwith moved the application
for correction of date of birth before the Management of the
respondent-company to the concerning authorities. The
petitioner was granted compassionate appointment in lieu of the
services of her deceased husband but she has never signed any
paper/form as the token of acceptance. It has been further
contended that the appointment order which does not contain
the date of birth of the petitioner and only a tentative age has
been mentioned as 34 years, which is not conclusive piece of
evidence and the actual date of birth was required to be
determined by the respondents-authorities through the ADC,
which was done subsequently in the year 2017 and the report of
the ADC also came in favour of the petitioner stipulating the
actual date of birth of the petitioner to be 07/08/1969 even then
the respondents recorded the incorrect date of birth without any
basis or documentary entries as 31/12/1962 which has been
recorded without any material as such it is illegal. It has been
further contented that she was never subjected to the medical
examination of Special Age Determination Committee, therefore,
all the entries have been made completely ex-parte and in
arbitrary manner, apart from this the so called Special Age
Page 9 of 17
Determination Committee has determined the age without the
consent of the petitioner. So far as the allegation is being made
by the respondents that the said institute has neither any
recognition from Govt. of Uttar Pradesh nor from the
Government of India it is wrong the true position is that the
Prayag Mahila Vidyapeeth is recognized by the State of Bihar
and the said certificate is valid and would pray for allowing the
writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the
nomination of the petitioner dated 21.05.1998 in the column of
the guardian the name of the elder brother namely Arvind Singh
is mentioned and his age is given as 30 years, which goes to
show that the version of the petitioner is correct. The entry of
date of birth as 31.12.1962 is completely arbitrary and without
any documentary evidence and there is tampering in the date of
birth mentioned in Form B by putting date in the entry. He would
further submit that the petitioner has passed the matriculation
examination in December, 1986 from Prayag Mahila Vidyapeeth
which is recognized by the Board of Education, Bihar as such,
she is a literate employee, therefore, her age should have been
assessed by the Age Determination Committee as per
Instruction No. 76. He would further submit that she has
submitted School Leaving Certificate issued by District
Education Superintendent Begusrai dated 18.07.2000 in which
also her date of birth has been mentioned as 07.08.1969 as
such, the date of birth recorded by the respondent dated
Page 10 of 17
31.12.1962 is illegal and would pray for allowing the petition. To
substantiate his submission, he would refer to the judgment
rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Bharat
Cooking Coal Ltd. & others Vs. Chhota Birsa {(2014) 12 SCC
570}, State of Orissa Vs. Dr. Bina Pani Devi & others {AIR
1967 SC 1269} & Sukalu Ram Vs. Union of India & others
{SCC Online M.P. 2010 Page No. 437}.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/SECL
would submit that the petitioner has not filed any document
which has been issued prior to her appointment to demonstrate
that her date of birth is 07.08.1969. He would further submit that
in the appointment letter as well in the Form B Register her date
of birth has been recorded as 34 as on 31.12.1996 and which
has been accepted by the petitioner, as such, at the fag end of
her service she cannot claim change of her date of birth in the
service record. He would further submit that the petitioner was
given dependent employment treating to be illiterate dependent
now at the fag end of career, she intended to be treated as
literate dependent which cannot be considered and would pray
for dismissal of the writ petition. To substantiate his submission
he would refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
case of Ramesh Chandra Shah vs. Anil Joshi {AIR 2023 SC
1613}, Seema Ghosh vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. {2006 (7)
SCC 722}, Pandu vs. C.M.D. {AIR Online 2019 MP 592} and
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Shyamkishore Singh {AIR 2020 SC
940}.
Page 11 of 17
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with upmost satisfaction.
8. On above stated factual position, the point to be determined by
this Court is:-
“Whether the petitioner can be allowed to change date of
birth on the basis of educational certificate to be treated as
literate employee?”
9. To appreciate the point emerged for determination, it is expedient
for this Court to go through with Instruction No. 76 which has
been issued as per the NCWA II executed between the Coal
Company and their Union. The Instruction provides for
determination/verification of age of employee of illiterate/literate
employees. The Instruction No. 76 provides that in case of
existing literate employees, the age is to be determined
according to matriculation certificate or higher secondary
certificate issued by recognized university or board or by middle
class certificate issued by board of education and/or department
of Public Instruction and the admit card issued by the aforesaid
bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued
by the said university/ board/ institution prior to the date of
employment. So far as illiterate person, the age should be
determined as per Clause C of the Instruction which provides
constitution of Age Determination Committee/ Medical Board.
This Clause further provides that in case of the employee whose
date of birth cannot be determined in accordance with the
Page 12 of 17
procedure mentioned in B (i)(a) or B(i)(b). The date of birth
recognized in the records of the company namely Form B
register, C&PF records and Identity Cards is to be treated final
provided that where there is a variation in the age recorded in
the records mentioned above, the matter will be referred to the
Age Determination Committee/ Medical Board constituted by the
management.
10. In light of the Instructions and the records available on records,
the case of the petitioner has to be examined by this Court. From
the service record annexed by the respondent/SECL, it is quite
vivid that the petitioner was given dependent employment by the
respondent on 12.05.1997 as General Category Majdoor
illiterate employee after medical examination, her age appears to
be 34 years and in the service record, the age of the petitioner
mentioned by her husband is 25 years on 09.10.1987 and as per
the marksheet issued by Prayag Mahila Vidyapeeth the
petitioner appeared in the matriculation examination, her date of
birth is mentioned as 07.08.1969. The petitioner has also
submitted her affidavit for obtaining dependent employment
wherein she has mentioned the date of birth of her daughter as
12 years, son 7 years, daughter 4 years & daughter 2 years.
Thereafter, she has also submitted Attestation Form wherein her
date of birth has been mentioned as 31.12.1962. The
respondent vide its circular dated 11.12.1996 has sanctioned the
appointment order of the petitioner while considering the age
recorded in the office document such as proposal, affidavit, LTC
Page 13 of 17
Form etc. of the female dependent will not be taken as correct
age in case of literate female dependent i.e. those who are
below matriculation. In such cases, the age of female dependent
is to be determined by the Special Age Determination Committee
consisting of Area Medical Head, Area Regional Head, Finance
Head & Staff Officer (Ministerial). After verifying the record, she
was sent for medical examination on 26.12.1996 and after
medical examination she was appointed as General Majdoor
Category-I on 20.05.1997 as illiterate employee and as per
service record, her date of birth has been mentioned as
31.12.1962 and she has also submitted her signature and in the
relieving order dated 28.02.1998 and Last Pay Certificate
18.03.1998, her date of birth has been mentioned as
31.12.1962. The petitioner has also submitted particulars of her
family, Form No. PS-4, LTC Form wherein also she has put her
date of birth as 31.12.1962 and age of her daughters/son have
been mentioned as 13, 9, 6 & 4 years respectively.
11. From the above stated referred document, it is quite vivid that
there is no dispute about the date of birth mentioned as
31.12.1962 in the service record of the petitioner maintained by
the respondent being treated as illiterate existing worker, the age
so mentioned in the records, has to be treated as final as such, it
is not required for the respondents to refer the matter to the Age
Determination Committee/ Medical Board constituted by the
management. As such, there is no illegality in rejecting the
representation of the petitioner vide order dated 07.05.2021
Page 14 of 17
treating her date of birth to be 31.12.1962.
12. Now the submission made by the petitioner that in the mark-
sheet issued by Prayag Mahila Vidyapeeth wherein the date of
birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 07.08.1969 and it
is recognized by the Bihar Education Board, is being considered
by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner to substantiate
this submission, has filed Annexure P/22 i.e. order issued by the
Government of Bihar dated 06.01.1987 recognizing the Prayag
Mahila Vidyapeeth, Allahabad as recognized board. This
submission cannot be considered by this Court as the Clause-V
of the circular provides that examination passed by the Prayag
Mahila Vidyapeeth will be recognized subject to the condition
that the candidate should have passed the examination of
English only at the standard level from any recognized Indian
School or Board or should have passed the qualification test of
the level of recognized Universities or Board of Bihar in English
dialogue composition and succinct writing but the petitioner has
not filed any document to substantiate that she has passed the
examination of english as provided in the order dated
06.01.1987 prior to her appointment on 20.05.1997. The
petitioner has also submitted the duplicate school leaving
certificate (Annexure P/2) issued on 18.07.2000 by the Head
Master, Govt. Middle School, Begusrai. This cannot be
considered to determine the age of the petitioner as 31.12.1962
as per the Instruction No. 76 in case of literate employees, the
matriculation certificate or higher secondary certificate issued by
Page 15 of 17
the University/Board or middle pass certificate issued by the
Board of Education or department of Public Instruction and admit
card issued by the aforesaid bodies, is to be treated as corrected
provided it has been issued prior to the date of employment. The
duplicate School Leaving Certificate (Annexure P/2) issued by
the Headmaster of the school on 18.07.2000 will not come in
rescue of the petitioner for treating her date of birth as
07.08.1969 as it has been issued much after employment of the
petitioner on 12.05.1997. Even otherwise, the same does not fall
within the category of certificate issued by the university/ board
or middle pass certificate issued by the Board of Education and
or department of Public Instruction. As such, it is quite vivid that
the petitioner is unable to establish that she has passed
matriculation examination from a recognized board to be
classified herself as literate employee and to direct the
respondent to constitute Age Determination Committee. From
the above submission, it is quite vivid that the petitioner was
appointed as General Majdoor Category-I illiterate employee.
13. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of South Eastern Coalfields
Limited & another Vs. Ram Niranjan Patel [Special Leave
Petition (C) No. 21377/2024 (decided on 03.01.2024)] has
considered the issue of age determination of employees of
illiterate category and has held as under:-
“Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length,
we are of the considered view that both the learned Single
Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court had
not considered a relevant factor in this case, which was
Page 16 of 17that the respondent was given appointment under the
‘illiterate category’, and it was specifically stipulated in
Implementation Instruction No. 76 that the 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.”
For these reasons, we set aside the orders passed by the
learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the
High Court and allow the present appeal.”
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment in
case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited (supra) to substantiate
that the petitioner has raised dispute well within time and not at
the fag end of her career or on eve of superannuation but was
raised at earlier possible opportunity is concerned, there is no
quarrel with this legal position in view of the specific facts
projected by the petitioner and admitted by the respondents,
therefore, the submission made by the respondents that the
petitioner has filed this petition at the fag end of her career,
deserves to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected.
15. From the above submission and considering the law with regard
to age determination particularly the fact that the petitioner was
given employment on the post of General Majdoor Category-I
illiterate dependent employee, she cannot turned around and
pray for determining the age by constituting the Age
Page 17 of 17
Determination Committee as per the Instruction No. 76.
Accordingly, it is held that the date of birth of the petitioner has
been rightly recorded as 31.12.1962 in the entire service record.
As such, the Point emerged for determination is answered
against the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to get
any relief as prayed for in this writ petition.
16. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit is liable to be and is
hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
KISHORE
KUMAR
DESHMUKH
Digitally signed by
KISHORE KUMAR
DESHMUKH
Date: 2025.06.09
17:20:07 +0530
Deshmukh
[ad_1]
Source link