Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 153 (JHR)

Arun Mahto v. Central Coalfields

2007-03-07

R.K.MERATHIA

body2007
JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J 1. Petitioner has challenged the advance notice dated 2.6.2005 informing him that he will superannuate on 29.12.2005. Petitioner has further prayed for direction upon the respondents to correct his date of birth on the basis of the school leaving certificate and for consequential benefits. 2. The question is whether the petitioner can be allowed to raise dispute about his date of birth and reopen the matter at the fag end of his service? 3. According to the petitioner, he learnt for the first time in September 2004 that his date of birth has been recorded incorrectly in his service record, when computerised pay slip was issued, showing his date of birth as on "29.12.1945". As, according to his school leaving certificate, it is "5.2.1950", he raised a dispute but he was made to retire with effect from 31.12.2005. 4. It has been categorically denied by the respondents that petitioner produced any certificate in proof of his date of birth at the time of his appointment on 29.12.1979. It has been asserted that the date of birth recorded in the service book (Annexure A) is "29.12.1945" whereupon petitioner put his signature as far back as on 23.10.1980. The service excerpt signed by the petitioner on 7.3.1987 has also been annexed as Annexure B. Several other documents have been annexed as Annexures C, D, E, F in the counter affidavit to show that in all those documents, petitioner's date of birth is mentioned as "29.12.1945" and he signed all such documents between the years 1980 to 1998, which has not been denied by the petitioner. In these circumstances, it cannot be accepted that all such documents have been manufactured by the management. Moreover, there is no reason for the management to do so. Thus it is clear that the petitioner was fully knowing from the very beginning that his date of birth recorded in the service records was "29.12.1945". The date of birth is a vital entry for an employee. Petitioner was not an illiterate. It is not possible to believe that only in 2004, he learnt about his date of birth recorded in the service book. Thus it has to be held that petitioner raised the dispute at the fag end of his service when he was going to retire in 2005. 5. In the case of Awadh Singh v. The Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors. Thus it has to be held that petitioner raised the dispute at the fag end of his service when he was going to retire in 2005. 5. In the case of Awadh Singh v. The Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors. relied on behalf of the petitioner, there was a settlement between the union and the management before the Assistant Labour Commissioner in the industrial dispute raised by the employee that his date of birth will be corrected after verifying it from the School Examination Board; and even though the Board verified his date of birth, he was referred to the medical board for assessment of his age. In that situation, it was said that referring that employee to the medical board was wrong. Thus the case of Awadh Singh (Supra) is of no help to the petitioner. 6. In the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. S.M. Jadhav and Anr. (2001)ILLJ1695SC and the judgment dated 21.12.2005 passed in W.P. (S) No. 5839 of 2005 (affirmed by the judgment dated 19.7.2006 passed in L.P.A. No. 2006), it has been held that an employee cannot be allowed to agitate/reopen a dispute with regard to his date of birth at the fag end of his service. 7. Mrs. Pal by producing some letters submitted that petitioner's representation for correcting his date of birth/sending him to medical board is pending and, therefore, this Court may direct the respondents to consider and dispose of the same. Such prayer also cannot be accepted. It appears from the said letters that the respondents are reiterating their stand, but petitioner is going on writing letters. Further I am not inclined to direct the respondents to send the petitioner to the medical board. He has based his case on the school transfer certificate. His contention that he learnt about his date of birth recorded in the service book only in 2004, has been found to be false. 8. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. However, no costs. Petition dismissed.