Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1263 (JHR)

Kishori Mahto v. Central Coalfields Ltd.

2002-12-13

TAPEN SEN

body2002
Order The Petitioner prays for his reinstatement in service with effect from 3.1.2001 with full back wages. He also prays for quashing of the order No. 5289 dated 11.12.2000 by which the Project Officer, Sayal 'D' Colliery (Respondent No.4) informed the Petitioner that he would be superannuating with effect from 3.1.2001 on his having attained the age of superannuation. 2. According to the Petitioner, his date of birth as recorded in the service book is 1.1.1953 and the Respondents have all along acted on the basis of the aforesaid date of birth. 3. According to the petitioner, he was appointed on 5.12.1979. Subsequently he was asked to appear before a Medical Officer for assessment of his age and the Medical Board found his date of birth as 1.1.1953 and this was accepted by the Respondents. Thereafter entries were made in the service records of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has stated that the Respondents also issued service records (Annexure 3) in which his date of birth was recorded as 1.1.1953. Petitioner has also relied upon a pay slip which he has brought on record vide Annexure 6 which was issued to him and which also shows his date of birth to have been recorded as 1.1.1953. According to the Petitioner, therefore, in all records of the Respondents, his date of birth is 1.1.1953. 4. The Petitioner came to learn that the Respondents had issued a notice to several persons including the Petitioner on 27.8.2000 wherein they mentioned that the Petitioner would be reaching the date of superannuation and would therefore be retiring on 3.1.2001. Immediately thereafter the Petitioner sent a representation to the Respondent No. 3 through the Respondent No. 4 and submitted that all particulars in relation to his service showed that he was born on 1.1.1953 and therefore he should be allowed to retire only on 1.1.1913 (sic-2013 ?). No action was taken on the representation of the Petitioner and thereafter an office order was issued on 11.12.2000 (Annexure 8) by which the Petitioner was shown to be superannuating on and from 3.1.2001. 5. The Petitioner has challenged this office order and has stated that there is no over writing nor any cutting on the date of birth and every where in the service sheet and service record his date of birth has been mentioned as 1.1.1953. 6. 5. The Petitioner has challenged this office order and has stated that there is no over writing nor any cutting on the date of birth and every where in the service sheet and service record his date of birth has been mentioned as 1.1.1953. 6. The Respondents have filed Counter Affidavit in the instant case and they have stated that the impugned order suffers from no irregularities and the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. According to the Respondents, the date of first appointment of the Petitioner was 21.3.1981 and the same was accepted by the Petitioner by giving his thumb impression on a service sheet. They have further stated that documents annexed by the Petitioner such as Annexure 1 shows appointment of the Petitioner in whose place an impersonator was working and therefore no reliance can be made to that document. The Respondents have brought on record the service sheet vide Annexure 'A' and according to them this contains an over writing and the date of birth has been struck off and in place of 1941 it has been mentioned as 1.1.1953. The Respondents have further stated that in the service sheet dated 28.6.1983 wherein the first appointment of the Petitioner had been recorded the date of birth was mentioned as 3.1.1941 and the Petitioner subsequently tampered and manipulated the same and over wrote 1.1.1953 without any authentication of the competent authority only on the basis of a Medical Certificate done by a Medical Officer of Jharkhand Colliery Dispensary dated 1.1.1980 which is prior to his actual date of appointment and in that view of the matter the claim that he was born on 1.1.1953 is fit to be rejected. They have further stated that the Medical Certificate has never been produced before the Management and the same was never authenticated. 7. From a perusal of the aforesaid rival contention of the parties, it is, therefore, apparent that whether the Petitioner was born on 1.1.1953 or 3.1.1941 is a very serious disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated in this Writ Petition. Additionally, whether the Petitioner was first appointed on 23.1.1981 or prior thereto is again a matter which cannot be adjudicated by this Court. That apart whether one document is genuine and other forged can also not be decided by a Writ Court. 8. Consequently this writ Application is dismissed.