Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 946 (JHR)

Sharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad v. Shri Ram Singh

2003-08-04

GURUSHARAN SHARMA, VIKRAMADILYA PRASAD

body2003
By Court.-This appeal has been filed by M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others against the order dated 24.1.2002, passed by learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 2565 of 2000 (R) whereby direction was given to them to correct father's name as well as date of birth of the writ petitioner, who is respondent herein, in accordance with his matriculation certificate. 2. It is not in dispute that Shri Ram Singh, the sole respondent was appointed as Havildar by the then management of Kusunda Colliery on 11.10.1971. After nationalization of the said Colliery, its management was taken over by M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited and in form 'B' Register prepared under the provision of the Mines Act, name of his father was shown as late Sahanand Singh and his date of birth as 1.7.1946, which was duly signed by him. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector and thereafter on 7.11.1991 he was transferred from Kusunda area of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited to Kustore area. 3. According to the respondent, he had already passed matriculation examination in the year 1969 from Bihar School Examination Board and in the certificate issued by the Board his father's name was mentioned as 'Sanand Singh and his date of birth was recorded as 2.7.1950'. His further claim was that the Personnel Manager, Kusunda area, on the basis of the said certificate has already directed on 13.9.1991 itself for correction of his date of birth, but that was not done in his service records and, therefore, he filed an application before the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, Kustore area for such correction, which was rejected for the reasons that there were discrepancies in his father's name in the matriculation certificate and the service records, including Form 'B' Register. He thereafter filed CWJC No. 2565 of 2002 in this Court. 4. On behalf of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited a counter affidavit was filed therein stating, inter-alia, that his date of birth as recorded in the service book and Form 'B' was duly acknowledged and accepted by him and, therefore, there was no occasion for any correction therein. The matriculation certificate was not produced either at the time of his appointment or at the time when he had put his signature on Form 'B'; rather he accepted the entries made therein including the date of birth. 5. The matriculation certificate was not produced either at the time of his appointment or at the time when he had put his signature on Form 'B'; rather he accepted the entries made therein including the date of birth. 5. It was submitted on behalf of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited that the writ petitioner was at liberty to raise either industrial dispute or to go to competent court of civil jurisdiction for getting his date of birth declared according to his claim. 6. From perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge it appears that the learned Single Judge proceeded on the basis that when the officers of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited accepted his date of birth in the letter dated 13.9.1991, there was no reason why his father's name can also be not corrected. 7. On behalf of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, it was contended that the Personnel Manager, Kusunda, who had issued office order dated 13.9.1991 was not competent to pass such orders and, therefore, the said order was not given effect to and the date of birth of the respondent was not corrected in the service records. 8. In such circumstances, in view of the admitted position that neither the respondent's date of birth nor his father's name was corrected according to his claim in his service records and for that reason he had to make further representation (Annexure 6) dated 31.7.2000, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge was not justified in treating his date of birth to have been corrected and giving direction to the authorities concerned to make the aforesaid correction in accordance with the matriculation certificate. The said order is therefore, set aside. 9. In the result, this Appeal is disposed of with a direction to the authorities concerned to pass a reasoned order on the respondent's representation aforesaid dated 31.7.2002, which was not disposed of earlier. No costs.