Petitions regarding change of date of birth to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and latches: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Petitions regarding change of date of birth to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and latches has been upheld by the High Court of Chhattisgarh through a single bench led by HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE GOUTAM BHADURI in the case of Budhram v. Coal India Ltd. and Ors. (Writ Petition No. 16 of 2022). Brief facts of the case are that the actual date of birth of the petitioner is 07.12.1957, but erroneously without considering the representation, which was made much prior before the date of retirement, the petitioner was made to retire on 30.09.2011, which was communicated to him on 15.02.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not given a proper opportunity of hearing for the reason that representations were filed to establish the fact that his date of birth is 07.12.1957, therefore, the said letter dated 15.02.2011 is erroneous and could not be given effect to. The respondents on the other hand contended that the petitioner stood retired back in the year 2011 and after much delay, this instant petition has been filed. There is no plausible explanation given by the petitioner to file the instant petition with enormous delay, as such, at this stage the representation of the petitioner could not be reconsidered. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited vs. T.P. Nataraja reported in 2012 SCC Online SC 767 and would submit that the like nature of petitions are required to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. The Court stated applying the aforesaid principle in the facts of this case, would reveal that the instant petition to set aside retirement with ancillary benefit has been filed with enormous delay. Furthermore, there is no plausible explanation given in the petition as to why the petition is grossly delayed by 10 years, therefore the petition stands dismissed.
Page AFRHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPURWPS No. 122Budhram S o Dukalu Aged About 64 Years Dumper OperatorR o Village Singuldeeh Post Loharshi Police Station Shivrinarayan District Janjgir ChampaMob 6261359132 PetitionerVersus 1.Coal India Ltd. Through Its Chairman 10 Netaji Subhash RoadCalcutta2.South Eastern Coalfields Limited Chairman Cum ManagingDirector Seepat Raod Bilaspur District Bilaspur3.Sr. Area General Manager South Eastern Coalfields LimitedChirmiri Opencast Project P.O. Chirmiri District Koriya4.Sub Area Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited Chirmiri Opercast Project P.O. Chirmiri District Koriya5.Area General ManagerSouth Eastern CoalfieldsLimited Kursiya Colliery Opencast Project P.O. Kursiya DistrictKoriyaRespondentsFor Petitioner: Mr. Vijay K Deshmukh AdvocateFor Respondents No.2 to 5: Mr. Vinod Deshmukh AdvocateHon ble Shri Justice Goutam BhaduriOrder On Board07.01.20221.Heard.2. The instant petition has been filed in the background of the factthat the actual date of birth of the petitioner is 07.12.1957 buterroneously without considering the representation which was made Page much prior before the date of retirement the petitioner was made toretire on 30.09.2011 which was communicated to him on 15.02.2011.3.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that thepetitioner was not given proper opportunity of hearing for the reasonthat representations were filed to establish the fact that his date of birthis 07.12.1957 therefore the said letter dated 15.02.2011is erroneous and could not be given effect to. He would furthersubmit that though several representationswere filedin the year 2011 much prior to the retirement but no cognizance wastaken and as such the retirement order which affects the right of thepetitioner would amounts to passing an order without giving anyopportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore the order ofretirement of the petitioner is required to be set aside andconsequential benefits accrued to the petitioner should be given.4.Per contra learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 5 wouldsubmit that the petitioner stood retired back in the year 2011 and aftermuch delay this instant petition has been filed. There is no plausibleexplanation given by the petitioner to file the instant petition withenormous delay as such at this stage the representation of thepetitioner could not be reconsidered. He placed reliance on thejudgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of KarnatakaRural Infrastructure Developmet Limited vs. T.P. Nataraja reportedin 2012 SCC Online SC 767 and would submit that the like nature ofpetitions are required to be dismissed on the ground of delay andlatches. Page .I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused thedocuments. 6.The date of retirement of the petitioner was 30.09.2011. Thenotice for date of retirement on 30.09.2011 was given to the petitioneras per Annexure P 1 by communication dated 15.02.2011 i.e. muchprior to the date of retirement. It appears that the petitioner slept overhis right if any and accepted the retirement and only relied upon therepresentation which was filed in the year 2011. Almost 10 years havepassed by now. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of T.P.Natarajafor change of date of birth has observed thatapplication for change of date of birth can be rejected on the ground ofdelay and latches and furthermore when it is made at the fage end ofservice. At Para 10 of the judgment the Hon ble Supreme Court haslaid down the law which is reproduced hereunder:“10.Considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court the lawon change of date of birth can be summarized as under:(i)application for change of date of birth can only be as perthe relevant provisions regulations applicableJudges@if 