### Educational qualification for promotion estops employer from denying matriculation certificate date of birth.

The workman, Rameshwar Pathak, was appointed as a General Majdoor by South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) in 1978.

At entry, his age was recorded as 25 years, resulting in a recorded date of birth (DOB) of 13-12-1953.

However, his 1971 Matriculation Certificate recorded his DOB as 01-07-1957.

Between 1981 and 1987, he was promoted to ministerial roles (Tub-Writer, Clerk Grade-II/I) based on this same certificate.

In 1987 and 2000, service records were updated to reflect his educational qualifications, and a 2004 internal note indicated DOB corrections were made per his marksheet.

Despite this, SECL sought to retire him on 31-12-2013 based on the 1953 date.

After initial writ petitions (W.P. 14501/2011 and W.P. 20196/2013), the High Court directed the workman to seek remedy under industrial law.

The Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) ruled in favor of the workman on 22-12-2021, directing the 1957 DOB be recognized.

SECL challenged this award in the present petition.

Whether the employer is estopped from disregarding the date of birth in a matriculation certificate after having used that same certificate to grant the workman promotions to ministerial cadres.

Whether the dispute regarding the date of birth was raised at the "fag end" of the career, thereby barring the workman from relief.

Whether the Age Determination Committee correctly applied Implementation Instruction No. 76 by treating the workman as "illiterate" under Clause A(iv) rather than "matriculate" under Clause A(i).

The Court applied Implementation Instruction No. 76 (I.I. No. 76) of the Coal India Ltd. manual, specifically Clause A(i), which mandates that for matriculates, the DOB in the certificate shall be treated as correct and unalterable

Clause A(iv), which pertains only to illiterates where no such certificate exists.

The Court relied on the principle of Estoppel, holding that an employer cannot recognize a document for promotion but ignore it for age.

It applied the precedent from Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Chhota Birsa Uranw (2014) 12 SCC 570, which establishes that a dispute raised nearly two decades before retirement is not a "fag end" request and should not be dismissed due to delay.

The Court rejected SECL's contention that the workman suppressed his qualifications at entry, noting that SECL failed to produce any rule disqualifying a literate person from being a General Majdoor.

The Court observed that SECL had effectively ratified the Matriculation Certificate as early as 1981 when promoting the respondent to "Tub-Writer," a post requiring literacy.

Having enjoyed the benefits of the workman’s literacy for decades, SECL was estopped from reverting to an "illiterate" status for retirement purposes.

Regarding the timing of the dispute, the Court found that the workman had been contesting the entry since at least 1987 and 2000—17 years prior to his retirement—meaning it was not a last-minute attempt to extend service.

The CGIT’s finding was upheld because SECL's Age Determination Committee erroneously applied the "illiterate" clause despite the undisputed existence of a valid 1971 certificate.

It held that the challenge was not delayed and that the employer's prior recognition of the certificate for promotions bound them to its DOB entry.

The petition filed by SECL was dismissed, and the CGIT award granting the workman wages and retiral benefits based on the 1957 DOB was affirmed.