Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1338 (JHR)

Daya Shankar Prasad v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited

2003-12-03

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2003
Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. K. Mehta learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. Petitioner had moved this Court earlier by filing C.W.J.C. No. 2281 of 2001 (R) challenging the order passed by the Respondents superannuating him on completion of the age of 60 years treating his date of birth as 2.9.1937. 3. This Court by order dated 27.7.2000 disposed of the writ application with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation with all documents in support of his claim and the respondents were directed to dispose of his representation by passing a reasoned order. Consequently, the petitioner filed his representation which was disposed of by the General Manager in-charge (P & IR) B.C.C.L. by Annexure-11 to the present writ application, whereby, the representation of the petitioner was rejected by a reasoned order, which is under challenge in the present writ application by the petitioner. 4. From the order (Annexure-11) rejecting the representation of the petitioner, it appears that the date of birth, mentioned in the matriculation certificate of the petitioner was not accepted, whereas the entries made and recorded in Form B Register was accepted as final. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk Grade-III in the 1975 by issue of Annexure-3 and as per the terms of the appointment, the petitioner submitted his Matriculation Certificate in which his date of birth has been recorded as 6.7.1951 and on that basis, in his service Book also, his date of birth has been recorded as 6.7.1951, therefore the Respondents accepted the date of birth of the petitioner to be 6.7.1951 and therefore on the basis of the entries in Form B Register, the order superannuating the petitioner is absolutely illegal and arbitrary. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entry regarding date of birth made in the service Book on the basis of the Matriculation Certificate is conclusive proof of the date of birth of the petitioner and therefore the respondents have committed grave illegality in not accepting his date of birth as mentioned in his Matriculation Certificate and thereby arbitrary compelled the petitioner to retire on the basis of the entries in the Form "B" register. 7. On the other hand Mr. 7. On the other hand Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has argued that the actual dispute is, with regard to the initial date of appointment of the petitioner. 8. He submits that in fact the petitioner was initially appointed on 2.9.1965 and not in 1975. Elaborating his argument, he submits that at the time of his initial appointment on 2.9.1965, the petitioner put his L.T.I. in Form "B" Register, where his date of birth was recorded as 28 years and therefore as per calculation, his date of birth has been calculated to be 2.9.1937. A photocopy of extract of Form B Register has been annexed as Annexure A to the Counter Affidavit filed by the respondents. The respondents have further asserted that the petitioner passed Matriculation Examination in 1968 i.e. during his service period and further that the petitioner had already become a member of the Coal Mines Provident Fund on 1.8.1967 i.e. prior to his passing of his Matriculation Examination and his C.M.P.F. account no was C/364525, accordingly, it is submitted by the Respondents that Assistant Commissioner of the Coal Mines Provident Fund by issuance of letter dated 14.12.1999 i.e. Annexure 8 to the counter Affidavit has clarified that the petitioner was appointed initially, in 1965 and further that from perusal of the Annexure C which is a Form containing the signature of the petitioner claiming release of gratuity, the petitioner himself mentioned his date of appointment to be 23.8.1965, therefore, now it does lie in the mouth of the petitioner to challenge his date of initial" appointment wherein his date of birth was recorded as 2.9.1937. 9. It is submitted by the respondents that since the petitioner passed Matriculation Examination after he entered in service in 1965 and therefore the date of birth mentioned in Matriculation Certificate cannot be treated as conclusive proof of the date of birth of the petitioner because the petitioner might have changed his date of birth. 10. Having considered the rival contention of the parties I am of the view that there is force in the submission made on behalf of the respondents. The submission of the respondents that the petitioner entered in service of the respondents in the year 1965 appears to be more plausible as otherwise he could not have become the member of the Coal Mines Provident Fund in the Year 1967 itself. 11. The submission of the respondents that the petitioner entered in service of the respondents in the year 1965 appears to be more plausible as otherwise he could not have become the member of the Coal Mines Provident Fund in the Year 1967 itself. 11. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the date of birth mentioned in the Matriculation Certificate cannot be said to be conclusive proof of his date of birth. 12. In the result I find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.