Ram Charan vs Southern Eastern Coalfields Limited & Ors

In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the

respondents to treat his date of birth as 17.11.1964 in place of 15.8.1960 in service record and consequently permit him to continue in employment till

30.11.2024.

Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as General Majdoor on 15.8.1982. At the time of his appointment, on

employer’s direction, he produced the High School Certificate, 1982 Annexure P-1. The certificate was issued before the date of his appointment

on 25.7.1982. The said certificate is issued by the competent authority namely; Board of Secondary Education, Uttar Pradesh. This certificate

contains the date of birth as 17.11.1964.

The petitioner was under the impression that in relevant record, the date of birth is rightly recorded by employer as 17.11.1964. In recent years, he

came to know that in certain documents, the date of birth of petitioner is recorded as 15.8.1960 in place of 17.11.1964. The applicant preferred a

representation dated 23.1.2015 Annexure P-3 and requested for alteration of date of birth. In support of the said date of birth, the applicant placed

reliance on the ‘PAN Card’ Annexure P-5.

Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s real elder brother, Ram Prakash is also an employee of

respondent/Company. His date of birth is recorded as 8.3.1962 in the matriculation certificate Annexure P-6. His aforesaid brother was appointed on

10.2.1981. His date of birth in his service record is recorded as 8.3.1962. By no stretch of imagination, the elder brother of petitioner can have later

date of birth. The identity card of Ram Prakash is also relied upon.

Shri Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a per Clause B (i) of Implementation Instruction No.76 (ii-76), the review of the date

of birth is permissible for the existing employees when the matriculation certificate is available which is issued prior to date of employment. The date

of birth so recorded must be treated as final. By placing reliance on the judgment; Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. Vs. Chhota Birsa Uranw [2014

(12 SCC 570] which was relied upon in order of this Court in W.P.No.16049/12 (Mannu K. Singh vs. SECL), it is prayed that date of birth of

petitioner deserves to be altered.

Sounding a contra note, Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the employer submits that petitioner was initially appointed as ‘Badli Tub

Loader’. At the relevant time, no educational qualification was required to become a ‘Badli Tub Loader’. Hence, neither the educational

qualification certificate was required to be produced at the time of appointment nor petitioner produced any such certificate. It is further argued that

petitioner himself informed his date of birth is 19.8.1960 which is evident from Annexure R-1. The Form B register of various mines are annexed with

the return (Annexure R-1 and R-2) which contains the date of birth as 19.8.1960. The identity card Annexure P-4 also contains the same date. The

statutory declaration as per Form A dated 3.7.1999 Annexure R-4 is relied upon which contains the same date of birth.

Shri Nair submits that when service record of petitioner was brought to his notice which is pregnant with the date of birth i.e. 19.8.1960, the

petitioner acknowledged the same by putting his thumb impression (Annexure R-4) but did not dispute the same till 2015. Pertinently, this was brought

to his notice on 8.1.1988 Annexure R-2. The respondent filed the representation dated 05.01.1991 of petitioner (with the return) which shows that

petitioner himself stated that he had not produced any educational qualification certificate at the time of appointment. Since at present for promotion,

the educational qualification is required, he had produced the same. On the strength of this document, it is argued that fact narrated by petitioner

regarding the submission of certificate at the time of appointment is not trustworthy. Shri Nair placed reliance on the order of this Court in Prabhat

Kumar Dwivedi Vs. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.No.19334/2019) which was affirmed in W.A.No.296/2019.

No other point is pressed by counsel for the parties.

I have heard counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

The contention of the petitioner that he submitted the educational qualification certificate (Annexure P/1) at the time of his appointment does not

inspire confidence for twin reasons:- (i) as per petitioner’s representation (Page 9 with the reply), he himself stated that he had not submitted his

educational qualification certificate before the department; (ii) at the time of initial appointment of petitioner, no educational qualification certificate

was required to be produced because the petitioner was working as ‘Badli Tub Loader’. No educational qualification is required to become a

‘Badli Tub Loader’. Thus, I find substance in the argument of Shri Nair that the petitioner had submitted the marksheet for the first time on

05.01.1991. However, it is relevant to mention here that even on this day, he did not pray for alteration of date of birth. The application dated

05.01.1991 is silent on this aspect. For the first time, he prayed for alteration of date of birth by preferring representation dated 23.01.2015. Thus, it is

not in dispute that the petitioner has preferred representation at the December of his career.

This Court in WP. No. 19334/13 (Prabhat Kumar Dwivedi vs. Union of India) declined the relief to the petitioner therein, who was claiming

alteration of date of birth on the basis of higher secondary school certificate examination. This Court placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of

this Court in WA. No.881/16 (Shiv Prasad vs. WCL) and the order passed in WP. No.15180/11 (Ram Prasad vs. SECL) wherein it was held that the

petitioner was unable to establish that at the time of entering into the service, he produced educational qualification certificate.

In the case of Prabhat Kumar Dwivedi (supra), this Court held as under:-

“10. A cursory reading of this para shows that even if there is no provision which prescribes the period of limitation within which application seeking alteration of

date of birth can be filed, the application seeking correction must be filed within reasonable time otherwise delay alone can be a ground to decline the relief claimed.

In the present case, respondents have filed service particular (Annexure-R/2) which contains petitioner’s date of birth as 22.11.1981. The petitioner has

received this document in July, 1987. In the said document, a column is earmarked to raise objection or put comments upon various entries mentioned in the

document. The petitioner who came to know about this document in June, 1987 did not raise any objection in the said column. As per petitioner’s own saying in

rejoinder, he raised objection by sending representation on 26.02.1996. Thus, petitioner awake from his deep slumber after about 10 years’ and preferred

representation in the year 1996 and thereafter filed this petition in the year 2013. Thus, the delay is fetal in the present case. The Apex Court in case reported in 1993

(2) SCC 162 [Union of India vs. Harnam Singh] opined as under:

“A Government servant who makes an application for correction of date of birth beyond the time, so fixed, therefore, 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. The law of limitation may operate harshly

but it has to be applied with all its rigour and the courts or tribunals cannot come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights and allow the period of limitation to

expire.â€​ [Emphasis Supplied]â€​

In the instant case also when it was brought to the notice of petitioner that his date of birth is recorded in the service record as 15.08.1960, he did

not raise any objection promptly. Importantly, this fact was brought to his notice by the employer on 02.01.1988 (Annexure R/2). He prepared

representation for change of date of birth in the year 2015. The Division Bench of this Court affirmed the order passed in Prabhat Kumar Dwivedi

(supra) in WA. No.296/19. Importantly, in WP. No.16049/12 this Court allowed the petition seeking alteration of date of birth but it was reversed in

WA. No.783/16 decided on 17.11.2017. SLP. No.11673/18 filed by the employee was also dismissed by the Apex Court on 20.04.2018.

In view of foregoing analysis, it is clear that the petitioner has approached the Court at the fag end of his career. He did not promptly raise any

objection regarding incorrect date of birth. Thus, in view of judgment of this Court in the case of Prabhat Kumar Dwivedi, Shiv Prasad and Ram

Prasad (supra), I find no reason to interfere in this petition.

The petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost.

Â