Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 272 (JHR)

Chatradhary Singh v. Central Coal Field Ltd.

2007-04-09

PERMOD KOHLI

body2007
JUDGMENT Permod Kohli, J. 1. Petitioner with effect from 01.07.1998 forenoon on the ground that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation of 60 years on 30 th June, 1998. 2. According to petitioner, his date of birth is 01 st July, 1942. It is also mentioned that his elder brother, Mr. Narayan Singh is also working as a Supervisor in C.C.L., he is five years older than him and his date of birth is recorded as 02nd February. 1937. Petitioner joined the service of the Respondent-Company on 01 st April, 1961. It is stated that petitioner came to know of recording of his date of birth as 01 st July, 1938, when he was asked to make representation in respect to the entries made in the service record, copy whereof was also forwarded to the petitioner. A copy of the service record is placed as Annexure-1 with the writ application. In this document the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 01 st July, 1938. Petitioner claims to have made representations dated 09 th March, 1990, where he claimed his date of birth as 01st July 1942. It is also alleged that representation of the petitioner was forwarded for consideration. Another representation was made on 06.01.1992 but no action was taken by the Respondents and petitioner was retired by the impugned order. 3. The Respondent-Company has taken a categorical stand that as per the date of birth recorded in the service book prepared by the National Coal Development Corporation Limited, the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.07.1938. Further stand of the Respondent is that the petitioner has received the retrial benefits without any objection. 4. Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to Annexure-3, whereby the dispute was referred to the higher authorities making some observation of some interpolation, overwriting in the records. She has further relied upon Annexure-1, whereby the concerned employee was asked to make representation. 5. I have perused Annexure-1. It is not that every employee was asked to fill up the form, only such employees were required to represent, wherever any blank column was left in the application form as information was not available with the Company. The employee was required to furnish such information. 5. I have perused Annexure-1. It is not that every employee was asked to fill up the form, only such employees were required to represent, wherever any blank column was left in the application form as information was not available with the Company. The employee was required to furnish such information. Perusal of this document clearly indicates that all columns have been duly filled up and thus there is no question of further information, which was required to be furnished. It is also not in dispute that petitioner has made some representations, right from the year 1990 onwards. It is admitted case of the parties that petitioner is an illiterate. The Company has laid down norms, which, inter alia, provide that where the matriculation Certificate is available, the same shall be taken into consideration for determination of the age and where the person is a non-matriculate, the School Leaving Certificate will determine the age of the employee and in other cases, where none of the above modes are available, the date of birth as recorded in the service record shall be taken as final. Petitioners case falls in the third category. It is stated that some interpolations have been made in the service record and the petitioner was required to be medically examined to determine his age. Vide Interlocutory order dated 12 th May, 2006, Respondents were directed to produce the original service book. Today, Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel for the Respondents has produced the original service book of the petitioner, maintained by the National Coal Development Corporation Ltd., namely, "Mineals Service Register". In this record, originally the date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 01 st January, 1938. However, the month of January has been corrected as July and there is no interpolation, overwriting or tampering of any kind as far the year of birth is concerned. It is also admitted case of the petitioner that his date of birth is 01 st July, the only dispute is that of the year. Since, there is no interpolation in the year as per the service record, the question of holding of any enquiry at this belated stage or referring the case of the petitioner to the Medical Board is of no use. Petitioner has retired in the year 1998. Since, there is no interpolation in the year as per the service record, the question of holding of any enquiry at this belated stage or referring the case of the petitioner to the Medical Board is of no use. Petitioner has retired in the year 1998. According to the petitioners own statement he came to know of the date of birth recorded in the year 1990 but no legal steps were taken for rectification of the date of birth, except making some representations. 6. Under the above circumstances and in view of the original service book produced by the Respondents, I do not find any merit in this writ application, which is, accordingly, dismissed. The original Service record produced is returned to the Respondent-Company.