Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1119 (JHR)

Manik Chand Ghosh v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.

2003-09-10

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2003
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. As both the writ petitions have been preferred by the common petitioner and relate to date of birth, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In WP(S) No. 3343 of 2002, the petitioner has challenged the order, contained in letter No. 2617 dated 23rd February, 2002, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been communicated the date of birth as assessed by the Date of Birth Committee i.e., 11th of August, 1943. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to treat his date of birth as 17th April, 1953. 3. IN WP(S) No. 4137 of 2003, the petitioner has challenged the order, contained in Reference No. N/PD/1602 dated 4th March, 2002 issued by the project Officer, Nichitpur Colliery, so far as it relates to petitioner, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been informed the date on which he was to retire on attaining the age of 60 years i.e., 3-1 st August, 2002. 4. According to the petitioner, he was appointed in the service of Ex-Private Company on 4th December 1972, which was later on taken over by the respondent Bharat Coking Coal Limited (for short BCCL). His date of birth was recorded as 17th May, 1953 in the Identity Cared issued on 26th April, 1974 as well as in the CMPF account allotted to him on 2nd February, 1977. In the School Leaving Certificate issued on 14th June, 1980 it is recorded as 17th April, 1953, but all of a sudden, it was shown as llth August, 1943 in the Computerised list of workers published on 5th March, 1998. He having apprehended some mistake, represented prior to the publication of the list on 17th March, 1998 whereinafter the authorities referred the matter to the Date of Birth Committee, which assessed his age as 43 years, on the basis of which the date of birth as 11th August, 1943, has been conveyed by letter dated 23rd February, 2002. 5. From the counter affidavit of the respondents, it appears that the petitioner did not disclose his date of birth in the Statutory Form B Register. 5. From the counter affidavit of the respondents, it appears that the petitioner did not disclose his date of birth in the Statutory Form B Register. In the year 1985-86, a Joint Bipartite Committee for the Coal workers decided to prepare Computerised Service Records of the employees/workmen and in the case of employees whose date of birth was not recorded in the Statutory Form B Register, to refer their cases before the Medical Board as per Mines Act. 6. The Medical Board assessed the age of the petitioner as 43 years as on 11th August, 1986, on the basis of which the date of birth was recorded as 11th August, 1943. The petitioner was asked to fill up the format on 11th August, 1986, which he filled up, signed, put thumb impression showing the age assessed by the Medical Board as 43 years on the said date i.e., 11th August, 1986 (Annexure-B to the counter affidavit). Subsequently, when a format was prepared and communicated to petitioner by the respondents for the purpose of preparation of computerized record, the date of birth was shown as 43 years as on 11th August, 1986 which the petitioner signed on 17th August, 1987 and returned. The Statutory Form B Register was opened showing the date of birth of petitioner as 43 years on 11th August, 1983 and the petitioner also signed in the Statutory Form B Register (Annexure-D to the counter affidavit). 7. For 16 (sixteen) years thereafter, the petitioner did not raise any grievance and in the fag end of the service career, when he was to retire from service, raised the disputed question of date of birth. In the case of State of T.N. v. Venugopalan, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 302 , the Supreme Court held that the application for alteration of recorded date of birth can only be entertained within a reasonable time from the date it was recorded. The date of birth once recorded and entered in the service record, counter signed by the Government servant, he should not be permitted to challenge at the fag end of his service. 8. In these circumstances, as the petitioner at the time of retirement cannot challenge the date of birth as was recorded in 1986-87, counter signed by him and there is a disputed question of date of birth no relief can be granted. 9. 8. In these circumstances, as the petitioner at the time of retirement cannot challenge the date of birth as was recorded in 1986-87, counter signed by him and there is a disputed question of date of birth no relief can be granted. 9. There being no merit, both the writ petitions are dismissed.