Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1174 (PAT)

Randhir Singh v. Central Coalfields Ltd.

2000-09-29

M.Y.EQBAL

body2000
Judgment 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing that part of the office order as contained in letter no. PO/KUGP/99/7912-25 dated 17.2.2000 issued by the Project Officer, Kedla Underground Project, whereby petitioner has been intimated that he would superannuate with effect from 10.8.2000 and further to allow the petitioner to work till his date of superannuation i.e. 26.12.2004 by declaring date of birth of the petitioner as 26.12.1944. 2. Petitioners case is that he passed matriculation examination from High School, Khaira in the district of Jamui and in the matriculation certificate his date of birth has been recorded as 26.12.1944. In 1976 petitioner was appointed as Mining Sirdar, Grade-1 and pursuant to appointment letter, he joined as such on 3.3.1976. Petitioners further case is that his date of birth was recorded as 26.12.1944 in Form-B register on the basis of matriculation certificate. In the Identity-card his date of birth was recorded as 26.12.1944. It is contended by the petitioner that respondent no. 5, suddenly on 20.8.99 issued a charge sheet to the petitioner making allegation of suppression of factual information relating to his date of birth, inasmuch as in other certificates the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 10.8.1940. It is alleged by the petitioner that on 27.9.99, the Welfare Officer, Kedla Underground Project without notice to the petitioner altered the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in Form-B register. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that petitioner was appointed under respondent-C.C.L. on 3.3.1976 as Mining Sirdar which is statutory post and he rose to the level of Senior Overman which is also statutory post. It is stated in all his statutory certificates his date of birth has been recorded as 10.8.1940. However, in the service book of the petitioner his date of birth was recorded as 26.12.1944 on the basis of attested copy of matriculation certificate submitted by the petitioner only on 3.8.1988. Subsequently, on complaint a vigilance investigation was made by the Chief Vigilance Officer in which discrepancies were noticed in the date of birth of the petitioner. However, in the service book of the petitioner his date of birth was recorded as 26.12.1944 on the basis of attested copy of matriculation certificate submitted by the petitioner only on 3.8.1988. Subsequently, on complaint a vigilance investigation was made by the Chief Vigilance Officer in which discrepancies were noticed in the date of birth of the petitioner. Accordingly, matter was re-examined by the competent authority and it was decided that the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in the service-book shall be corrected on the basis of date of birth recorded in his statutory certificates on the basis of which he was appointed in the company. 4. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order of the respondent communicated vide letter dated 17.2.2000, whereby petitioner was superannuated with effect from 10.8.2000 as being illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 26.12.1944 in the matriculation certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board and therefore petitioner could not have been asked to superannuate with effect from 10.8.2000. Learned counsel further submitted that the date of birth of the petitioner has been consistently recorded as 26.12.1944 in the service records maintained by the respondents including Form-B register and therefore the respondent could not have altered the same without any notice and without hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel then submitted that in the Implementation Instruction No. 76 of the respondent, if there is discrepancies in the date of birth then the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate shall be treated as correct and the same will not be altered under any circumstances. 5. On the other hand, Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents firstly drawn my attention to the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by the respondents and submitted that prior to appointment in the respondent C.C.L. in 1976, petitioner was employed as Exlamp fitter in the West Bokaro Colliery (Tata) since 1960 as permanent employee and in all the relevant records of West Bokaro Colliery, the erstwhile employer of the petitioner, the date of birth was recorded as 1.7.1940. Petitioner resigned from the service of West Bokaro Colliery on 12.4.1976 and then joined the respondent-company. Petitioner resigned from the service of West Bokaro Colliery on 12.4.1976 and then joined the respondent-company. It is stated that in August, 1960 petitioner joined in West Bokaro Colliery, where he disclosed his date of birth as 1.7.1940. After petitioner joined in respondent- C.C.L., he changed the date of birth as 26.12.1944 by submitting a typed copy of the matriculation certificate in the year 1988. Learned counsel submitted that when the discrepancies in the date of birth of the petitioner was detected by the Vigilance Department, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him for suppression of material facts. In such circumstances learned counsel submitted that the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate can not and shall not be taken as conclusive proof for the purpose of counting the age of superannuation of the petitioner. 6. After having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties, the only question falls for consideration is as to whether the date of birth of the petitioner shall be treated as 26.12.1944 according to matriculation certificate or 1.7.1940 as per the service record of the petitioner maintained by his erstwhile employer West Bokaro Colliery(Tata). 7. For better appreciation para 5, 6 and 7 of the supplementary counter-affidavit are reproduced hereinbelow : Para 5 : That it is being reiterated that prior to joining the M/s Central Coalfields Limited the petitioner was a permanent employee of West Bokaro Colliery (Tata). Para 6 : That the Senior Divisional Manager (P & A) West Bokaro vide a registered letter dated 19/26.6.2000 informed the Project Officer, Kedla Under Ground Project, CCL that as per the Service records of the petitioner his date of birth was recorded as 1.7.1940, date of appointment was 2.8.1960 and date of resignation was 12.4.1976. Reason for the resignation was due to unavoidable circumstances. Para 7 : That it is apparent from the facts stated above as well as in the Counter Affidavit that the actual date of birth of the petitioner was 1.7.1940 but when he joined the respondents he changed it to 1944." 8. The aforementioned paragraphs of the supplementary counter- affidavit have been controverted in para 20, 21 and 22 the reply to the supplementary counterfidavit, which are quoted hereinbelow : Para 20 : That the statements made in paragraph-5 of the supplementary counter-affidavit is matter of record. The aforementioned paragraphs of the supplementary counter- affidavit have been controverted in para 20, 21 and 22 the reply to the supplementary counterfidavit, which are quoted hereinbelow : Para 20 : That the statements made in paragraph-5 of the supplementary counter-affidavit is matter of record. Para 21 : That the statements made in paragraph-6 of the supplementary counter-affidavit are without any consequence. It is stated that the date of birth of the petitioner is 26.12.1944 as per Matriculation certificate and as per the Service Book of M/s Central Coalfields Limited which has been admitted by the Respondents. Any date of birth recorded by West Bokaro Colliery which is without any basis is denied and disputed. Para 22 : That the statements made in paragraph-7 of the supplementary counter-affidavit are denied and disputed. It is stated that at the time of his appointment, the Respondents themselves have recorded the date of birth of the petitioner as 26.12.1944 in the Form-B register as well as the Service-Book which is admitted by them. It is reiterated that the actual date of birth of the petitioner is 26.12.1944 and not 1.7.1940 as per his matriculation certificate (Annexure-1)" 9. It is, therefore, evident that in the reply to the supplementary counter-affidavit petitioner has not denied the fact that before joining the C.C.L in 1976 he was permanent employee of West Bokaro Colliery where his date of birth was recorded as 1.7.1940. The obvious reason for not mentioning the date of birth by the petitioner as 26.12.1944 was that in 1960 when he got employment in West Bokaro Colliery he was only 15 1/2 years old, if his date of birth was taken as 26.12.1944. Petitioner, therefore, disclosed his date of birth as 1.7.1940. However, while appearing in matriculation examination he changed his date of birth from 1.7.1940 to 26.12.1944. 10. It is, therefore, clear that while petitioner was permanent employee of the West Bokaro Colliery he has disclosed his date of birth as 1.7.1940. When petitioner joined the respondent-C.C.L. he disclosed his date of birth as 26.12.1944 on the basis of his matriculation certificate. 10. It is, therefore, clear that while petitioner was permanent employee of the West Bokaro Colliery he has disclosed his date of birth as 1.7.1940. When petitioner joined the respondent-C.C.L. he disclosed his date of birth as 26.12.1944 on the basis of his matriculation certificate. In view of two dates of birth disclosed by the petitioner while getting employment in two different companies, I am of the opinion that the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate shall not be treated as correct date of birth of the petitioner and cannot be and shall not be treated as conclusive proof of his date of birth. 11. Now the question arises as to which one is the correct date of birth of the petitioner. According to the petitioner the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate i.e. 26.12.1944 is the correct date of birth while according to the respondent the date of birth as disclosed by the petitioner in the service record of erstwhile employer, namely, West Bokaro Colliery i.e. 1.7.1940 is actual date of birth of the petitioner. This Adisputed question, in my opinion cannot and shall not be adjudicated by this Court exercising writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Since the petitioner has already superannuated he may if so advised, get his actual date of birth adjudicated by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. No relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ application, which is accordingly dismissed.