In a recent judgment delivered on September 26, 2025, Justice G.M. Mohiuddin of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by G. Bala Reddy against The Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL). The case revolved around a long-running dispute concerning the petitioner’s date of birth, which directly affected his retirement age and employment benefits.
Background
Bala Reddy joined Singareni Collieries in 1983. According to him, his date of birth was December 28, 1957, as per the records from Sri Saraswathi Shishu Mandir High School. However, the company had registered his date of birth as December 28, 1954, based on a medical assessment conducted when he joined.
Feeling wronged, Reddy approached the court claiming that this error had led to his premature retirement in December 2014, three years before his rightful superannuation date. He insisted that the school certificate should prevail over the medical board’s findings, citing provisions from the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) that prioritize educational records for date-of-birth verification.
Court’s Observations
Justice Mohiuddin carefully examined the arguments from both sides. The court noted that the school certificate relied upon by Reddy was issued only in 2014, over 30 years after his employment began. “If the petitioner had indeed submitted the school certificate at the time of joining, there would have been no need for a medical assessment,” the judge observed, questioning the timing and authenticity of the certificate.
The company’s counsel argued that Reddy had entered service as an illiterate worker and that his age had been determined medically and accepted by him through a thumb impression at the time of appointment. The Apex Medical Board later reaffirmed this assessment, declaring his age as 61 years in 2015, consistent with the company’s records.
Citing several Supreme Court precedents, including State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas (2011) and Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shyam Kishore Singh (2020), the court emphasized that requests for age correction near retirement are rarely entertained unless there is clear, irrefutable proof and evidence of clerical error. “No court can come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights,” the bench quoted, stressing the long delay in Reddy’s claim, filed a year after his retirement.
The court also expressed concern that allowing such corrections could have a “chain reaction,” potentially affecting the promotion and retirement of other employees waiting in line.
Decision
After reviewing the evidence, the High Court concluded that the petitioner had failed to prove that the date of birth in company records was wrong or that it was recorded due to negligence. It further held that the bona fide certificate issued decades later could not be treated as valid proof under the Joint Bipartite Committee for Coal Industry (JBCCI) guidelines.
Finding no illegality in the company’s action, Justice Mohiuddin dismissed the writ petition, stating that the order dated October 10, 2015, confirming the petitioner’s age, was lawful. The court also ordered that no costs be awarded and closed all pending petitions related to the matter.
With that, Reddy’s hope of extending his service till 2017 officially came to an end.
Case: G. Bala Reddy vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited
Case Type: Writ Petition No. 1406 of 2016
Petitioner: G. Bala Reddy
Respondent: The Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL)
Date of Judgment: 26 September 2025