Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1045 (JHR)

Ache Lal Napit v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.

2004-10-29

TAPEN SEN

body2004
JUDGMENT Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner in the instant case prays for quashing the letter dated 14.2.2002 issued by the Project Officer, Shatabdi OCP of BCCL, Moraidih Colliery, Barora Area, District-Dhanbad whereby and where under the petitioner was sought to be superannuated with effect from 1.7.2002 contrary to his date of birth recorded in the service book. 3. The petitioner joined M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited on 6.3.1972 as a Pump Operator in the Moradih Colliery. It is stated that in the year 1978, the Form-B Register of the petitioner was, opened and an extract of the photocopy of the said Form-B Register is Annexure-1 to the petition. Annexure-2 shows that as per S1 No. 1539 thereof, the petitioners date of birth was recorded as 28 years as in 1978. In other words, the petitioners date of birth has to be deemed as 1950. On 1.10.1992; the petitioners service particulars were is- sued vide Annexure-2 where again his age as "28 years as in 1978" was accepted. Thereafter, the petitioner states that an Identity Card was issued wherein his date of birth was shown as 1.7.1950. According to the petitioner, at the time of joining in 1972, his age had been recorded as 22 years as in 1972 and based on this, the aforementioned Identity Card was issued. The petitioner has further stated that in the year 1987, he was given excerpts of the service book which also showed that his date of birth was recorded as "28 years as in 1978". It is the further case of the petitioner that in the year 1977. he was posted at West Moradih Colliery when all personal records of the colliery were computerized and a department, by the name of EDP Department, was formed. It was during this period that the petitioner came to know that in the Computer Entry, his date of birth has been incorrectly recorded as "28 years as in 1972" instead of "28 years as in 1978". He protested vide two letters contained in Annexure-5 and based on the representation of the petitioner, the Project Officer issued a letter dated 5.4.1997 (Annexure-6) stating that there was a, variation in the date of birth recorded by the EDP Department. He therefore requested the Medical Officer to ascertain the exact date of birth. He protested vide two letters contained in Annexure-5 and based on the representation of the petitioner, the Project Officer issued a letter dated 5.4.1997 (Annexure-6) stating that there was a, variation in the date of birth recorded by the EDP Department. He therefore requested the Medical Officer to ascertain the exact date of birth. The Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, Barora, thereafter made a detailed enquiry and by 1 letter dated 6.2.1998, confirmed that the petitioners date of birth mentioned in the Form-B Register was "28 years as on 1978". He also confirmed that the date of birth as recorded in the service excerpts also mentioned "28 years as in 1978". On 4.3.1999, the petitioner therefore reminded the authorities to correct the incorrect entries in the Computer Data. Thereafter, he received the impugned letter dated 14.2.2002 by which, he was informed that he would be superannuating on 30.6.2002. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed wherein it has been stated that the petitioner is a workman and he has an alternative remedy by way of invoking the provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act. They have further stated that the documents brought on record by the petitioner are tampered and manipulated. It is also stated that in the service excerpts, the date of birth was initially recorded as "28 years as in 1970" but later on "1970" was corrected to read " 1978". Other statements are of similar nature. 5. If what the deponent has to say in the counter affidavit is correct, then what the Deputy Chief Personal Manager, Barora Area said in his letter dated 6.2.1998 (Annexure-7) is incorrect and vice versa. If the Deputy Chief Personal Manager had issued Annexure-7 stating that his ago had been mentioned in the Form-B Register as "28 years as on 1978" and that in the service excerpts also, his age stood recorded as "28 years as on 1978", then this Court does not understand as to how the deponent submits that there has been manipulation to the effect that 1970 had been made to read as "1978". It appears therefore, that the counter affidavit is not based on correct facts because they are in direct conflict to what the Deputy Chief Personal Manager said while issuing the letter dated 6.2.1998 as contained in Annexure-7. It appears therefore, that the counter affidavit is not based on correct facts because they are in direct conflict to what the Deputy Chief Personal Manager said while issuing the letter dated 6.2.1998 as contained in Annexure-7. Similarly, the letter of the Project Officer as contained in Annexure-6 also shows that the said Officer also admits that "there is a variation in the date of birth available on computer and the service excerpt. 6. Taking into consideration these aspects and also being aware of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to the effect that this Court cannot enter into disputed questions of fact., it is therefore felt appropriate that the matter should be looked into by the General Manager, Barora Area, of BCCL Dhanbad (respondent No. 2). 7. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed-off with a direction upon the General Manager to look into the documents and keeping in mind the letters dated 6.2.1998 (Annexure-7) of the Deputy Chief Personal Manager, Barora Area and also the letter dated 5.4.1997 (Annexure-6) of the Project Officer, Moraidih Colliery, he will take a final decision in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed-off. No order as to costs.