Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1315 (PAT)

Prabodh Raut v. Bihar State Electricity Board

2007-08-09

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents Electricity Board to subject him to a Medical Board and refixing his date of birth as such. The impugned annexures are annexures 5 and 6. The submission of the petitioner is that he was appointed under Tirhut Area Electricity Board as a unskilled Khalashi. His appointment was made in the year, 1980. At the time of appointment he furnished a School Leaving Certificate which is contained in annexure-1. The School Leaving Certificate gives his date of birth as 10.2.1960. Based on this certificate the service book of petitioner was opened and in the service book itself the date of birth has been recorded as 10th February, 1960. Petitioner has also brought on record the medical certificate which was issued to him at the time of recruitment i.e. dated 24.1.1980. The medical certificate issued by the Board has been recorded on the statement of petitioner to be 20 years but doctor opined it by his appearance to be 21 years. In other words, petitioner was not far from the date of birth as he has produced in annexure-1. 3. The petitioner thereafter has continued to work under the respondents for more than 20 years. When he was posted at Gopalganj a communication dated 23.10.2000 issued from the office of Superintending Engineer was received. In this communication there are 14 persons who are directed to appear before the Medical Board. Petitioner was one of them. Petitioner submits that he was subjected to a Medical Board under threat and coercion because the letter itself shows that if he did not appear before the Medical Board his salary would not be paid. Not only this letter also indicates that if the petitioner was not compelled to appear before the Medical Board then the salary even of his immediate boss be stopped. Petitioner is a lowly paid employee and the category which he belongs he obviously succumbed and appeared before the Medical Board. The Medical Board assess the age of petitioner to be between 44 to 46 years. The respondents are now trying to refix his age and date of birth accordingly. Petitioner questioned the wisdom of the respondents to put him before a Medical Board because there was no controversy as such existing at the time. There was no discrepancy in the service book. The respondents are now trying to refix his age and date of birth accordingly. Petitioner questioned the wisdom of the respondents to put him before a Medical Board because there was no controversy as such existing at the time. There was no discrepancy in the service book. He had produced a School Leaving Certificate at the time of entry into service and even the opinion of the Medical Board at the time of entry into service certified the age of petitioner and it co-related to his date of birth as such. 4. If that be the position then the respondent authority only created a ghost and tried to kill it later. Nobody has raised any dispute with regard to petitioner because even in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents they did not explain the circumstances as such why the petitioner should have been subjected to a Medical Board. If the respondents had accepted the School Leaving Certificate which is valid piece of evidence in terms of the amended circular and based on this accepted piece of evidence if his service book also recorded his date of birth as 10.2.60, petitioners case cannot be said to be one of those cases where serious doubt or dispute with regard to the date of birth arose. 5. The relevant amended circular is as follows: 7. No. VIII/MI-1016/81/181 To, All General Manager-cum-Chief Engineers Sub.: Determination of the age of workmen. It has been observed that a lot of representations are pouring in for correction of age recorded in the service book of the workmen on some ground or the other. The Field Officers have also been referring such cases indiscriminately to the Boards Haqs., without going into details of the instructions issued by the Board on the subject from time to time. Apart from the provisions made in the Boards Certified Standing Order No. 4(e), the Board has issued clarification in letter No. 4 dated 4.1.82, letter No. IV/BK-K-601/85-1094 dated 21.9.85 and letter No. 215 dated 28.7.87. To restipulate the provisions the following instructions have been issued for strict compliance: (1) The date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate will be treated as conclusive proof of age. To restipulate the provisions the following instructions have been issued for strict compliance: (1) The date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate will be treated as conclusive proof of age. (2) In the absence of Matriculation Certificate, the appointing authority may satisfy himself about the age of candidate on the basis of certificate of the Registrar/Municipality and the hospital in which the candidate has taken birth. In the absence of any of these certificates the School Leaving Certificate. Medical Fitness Certificate. Horoscope, supported by an affidavit that the Horoscope was prepared within one year of the date of birth and it is true, may also be considered for determining the age of the candidate........... 6. Petitioner had produced a School Leaving Certificate and the same was accepted by the respondents. If that be so then this Court has no hesitation to record that petitioner was undoubtedly subjected to Medical Board without any application of mind on behalf of the respondent and it has caused prejudice to him. In absence of any cogent reason being present the opinion of the Medical Board which was held in the year, 2000 will not be held out against the petitioner. 7. The respondents are directed to accept the date of birth as recorded in the service book of petitioner to be valid and legal date of birth. He shall be made to retire based on his date of birth being 10th February, 1960. The opinion of the Medical Board contained in annexure-6 is accordingly quashed. 8. This writ application stands allowed.