Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 284 (PAT)

Hari Kant Jha v. Bihar State Electricity Board

2003-03-07

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2003
Judgment Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J. 1. In this writ application, prayer of the petitioner is to quash the communication dated 28-1-2001 (Annexure 9) addressed by the Secretary of the Bihar State Electricity Board to the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer informing the later that the date of birth of the petitioner originally recorded in his service book is 25-2-1943. Further prayer of the petitioner is to quash the communication dated 24-8-2001 of the same effect, Petitioner also prays for quashing of the order dated 5-3-2002 (Annexure 12) whereby the representation claiming 9-11-1947 as his date of birth has been rejected. 2. Facts necessary for the decision of the present writ application are that the petitioner joined the service of the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) as Store Assistant on 24-3-1967. Prior to his appointment as Store Assistant, he worked on Muster Roll at Patratu It is the stand of the petitioner that in the service book, which was opened in the year 1969, his date, of birth was mentioned as 9-11-1947. It is his grievance that the service book which contained the details of another employees from Column No. 1 to 6, was pasted and on account of scarcity of service book used for opening the service book of the petitioner and the date 25-2-1943, which related to another person used to determine the petitioners date of birth. Petitioner claims his date of birth to be 9-11-1947 relying on the entry made in the certificate of Prathama examination conduced by Bihar Sanskrit Board in the year 1956. 3. It seems that when it came to the notice of the respondent Board that the dates of birth of a large number of employees originally recorded in the service book have been tampered, it constituted a Committee to examine the discrepancies in service book in relation to the dates of birth. The Committee so constituted, examined the service book of the petitioner along with other employees and it found over writing in the date of birth and directed for sending the service book to the Forensic Science Laboratory for ascertaining the date of birth of the petitioner originally recorded in the service book. The Forensic Science Laboratory gave its report stating that the original entry in the date of birth of the petitioner is 25-2-1943. The Forensic Science Laboratory gave its report stating that the original entry in the date of birth of the petitioner is 25-2-1943. On the basis of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, the matter was examined by the Secretary of the Board, who observed as follows: "2. Shri Kant Jha, Asstt Store Keeper, Central Store, Muazffarpur.--In consideration of the overwritten date of birth of Shri Jha, his service Book has been examined by the Bihar Forensic Laboratory which has reported that the originally recorded date of birth is 25-2-1943. Madhyama certificate is not within the meaning of satisfactory proof of the age under Clause 4 (d) of the Bihar State Electricity Board Certificate Standing Order. Since Shri Jha is not matriculate, his date of birth is determined as 25-2-1943 (Twentififth February nineteen hundred forty three) which is originally recorded in accordance with Sub-rule 3.22 of Bihar State Electricity Board Financial and Account Code (Chapter I to III)." 4. Dr. Sada, Nand Jha, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that there being dispute in regard to the age of the petitioner, his case ought to have been referred to the Medical Board for determination of the age. Undisputedly, he submits that the petitioner was not referred to the Medical Board for determination of his age, which itself renders the impugned orders vitiated in the eye of law. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Datta, however, appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that in the present case, the dispute was not a nature which required determination of the age by the Medical Board in fact, the original entry made in the service book in regard to the age was to be ascertained in which the Medical Board had no role and hence, the Board was not obliged to refer the matter to the Medical Board. 5. Having appreciated the rival submissions, I do not find any substance in the submission of Dr. Jha. Here in the present case, the Committee constituted by the Board found overwriting in the service book of the petitioner in relation to his date of birth and the respondent Board decided to send the service book to the Forensic Science Laboratory for ascertaining the original entry. The Forensic Science Laboratory found the entry in the Column of the date of birth to be 25-2-1943. The Forensic Science Laboratory found the entry in the Column of the date of birth to be 25-2-1943. In my opinion, as the matter pertains to ascertaining the original entry in the column of the date of birth, this dispute is not of such a nature which should have been referred to the Medical Board. 6. Dr. Jha then submits that the Certificate granted by the Bihar Sanskrit Board of the petitioner passing Prathama examination shows his date of birth as 9-1-1947 and its authenticity having been established from the communication of the Controller of Examination dated 18-12-2000 (Annexure 7), respondents Board is bound to accept the same. He further points out that thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the Madhayama examination and had also passed the same. I do not find any substance in this submission of Dr. Jha also. It is relevant here to state that the certificate of Prathama examination (Annexure 1) shows the petitioners date of birth as 9-11 -1947 but no date of birth has been indicated in the certificate of Madhayama examination. It may be pointed out that the Madhayama certificate produced by the petitioner was considered by the Board and not found satisfactory proof of age under Clause 4 (d) of the Bihar State Electricity Board Certified Standing Order. In any view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the date of birth of the petitioner having been entered as 25-2-1943, his date of birth in the certificate of Prathama examination, loses its significance. 7. It is well settled thatthe date of birth entered in the service book is of vital importance not only for the employees but the employer also and this Court does not permit its alteration at the fag end of the career of an employee. Here in the present case, the petitioner was initially appointed in 1967 as Store Assistant and according to his own assertion, the service book was opened in the year 1969. The service book so opened, contains the petitioners date of birth as 25-2-1943. Any alteration in the date of birth at such a distance of time on the basis of the purported entry in the Prathama certificate, is absolutely uncalled for. " 8. Dr. Jha lastly submits that in fact the service book of some other employee has been used for determining the date of birth of the petitioner. Any alteration in the date of birth at such a distance of time on the basis of the purported entry in the Prathama certificate, is absolutely uncalled for. " 8. Dr. Jha lastly submits that in fact the service book of some other employee has been used for determining the date of birth of the petitioner. He points out that at the relevant time, there was scarcity of service book and as a result thereof the service book in which the name and other details of another employee from Column No. 1 to 6 were entered, used for opening the service book of the petitioner after pasting the same from Column No. 1 to 5, and according to him the date of 25-2-1943 was in relation to another employee. The submission of Dr. Jha prima facie, seems attractive but on a deeper scrutiny. I find hollowness in the same. Dr. Datta, Counsel for the Board has produced before me the original service book. True it is that some of the columns have been pasted but same contain the name and other details of the petitioner and, in fact, the same bears the signature of the petitioner on the very same page. Had the service book of somebody else, there was no occasion for the petitioner to sign the service book. It is not disputed that the page which contains the date of birth of the petitioner bears his signature. 9. In the result, I do not find any merit in this application and it is dismissed accordingly.