Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 536 (ORI)

Krushna Dhansena @ Krishna Dhansena v. Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.

2007-07-12

A.K.SAMANTARAY, B.P.DAS

body2007
JUDGMENT B. P. DAS, J. : The petitioner in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the notice dated 16/17.10.2006 issued by the Superintendent/Manager, Hirakhand Bundia Mines of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., O.P. No.2, (Annexure-6) superannuating him with effect from 31.3.2007 as being illegal and arbitrary and not based on record. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the date of birth of the petitioner being 16.3.1954, he will attain the age of superannuation, i.e., 60 years, 31.3.2014, but O.P. No.2 has issued the impugned notice (Annexure-6) superannu¬ating him with effect from 31.3.2007 taking his date of birth to be 16.3.1947. It is stated that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Loader in Hirakhand Bundia Mines of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and after bifurcation of the said company, the petitioner came under the management of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. The various documents relied upon by the petitioner like Annex¬ure-1, i.e., the Identity Card issued by the then South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Annexure-2, the communication dated 14.10.1986 issued to the petitioner by the Superintendent/Manager of Hirakhand Bundia Inclines of the then South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., indicate his date of birth as 16.3.1954. That too, the medical service book issued by the Personnel Officer of the Hirakhand Bundia Mines, O.P. No.3, to the petitioner shows his date of birth as 16.3.1954. Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the order of superannuation treating the date of birth to be 16.3.1947 is illegal and arbi¬trary. 3. Notice in this case was issued to the opposite parties on 27.2.2007 by special messenger and after hearing both the parties, we passed an interim order on 30.3.2007 directing not to superannuate the petitioner till the next date, i.e., 9.5.2007, and the said order is still continuing. 4. The opposite parties in their counter affidavit have disputed the claim of the petitioner. During the course of hear¬ing the opposite parties also produced the service record of the petitioner for our perusal. The Service Register maintained by the Western Coalfields Ltd. (WCL) in respect of the petitioner (Annexure-A) shows his date of birth as 16.3.1947. 4. The opposite parties in their counter affidavit have disputed the claim of the petitioner. During the course of hear¬ing the opposite parties also produced the service record of the petitioner for our perusal. The Service Register maintained by the Western Coalfields Ltd. (WCL) in respect of the petitioner (Annexure-A) shows his date of birth as 16.3.1947. It is stated that since the petitioner was illiterate, in order to find out his age he was produced before the Area Medical Board of the IB Valley Area and the Board after examining the petitioner on 24.3.1982 found his age to be 34-35 years, as would appear from the communication of the Medical Superintendent of the Regional Hospital of IB Valley Area of WCL (Annexure-A/1). The declaration made by the petitioner before the authority regarding his family members, vide Annexure-C/1, as well as the option form submitted by the petitioner for availing L.T.C. for the block year 1984-87, vide Annexure-D/1, the date of birth of the petitioner has been indicated as 16.3.1947. Relying upon the above documents, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that the petitioner at the fag end of his service career and for the first time prayed for correction of his date of birth as recorded in his service register, which should not be allowed. According to him, there is also nothing on record to show that the petitioner during his service had ever approached the authority earlier for correction of his date of birth. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the opposite parties and looking at the documents relied upon by both the parties, determination of date of birth being a question of fact, relying upon the judgments rendered by this Court in similar situation in W.P.(C) Nos.1423 of 2003 (Deoraj Dubey v. M.C.L. and ors), disposed of on 16.3.2005, and W.P.(C) No.5427 of 2005 (Biralal Sharma v. M.D., M.C.L. & ors.), disposed of on 18.11.2005, we are of the opinion that this Court cannot conduct a trial by framing issues to determine the fact in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There¬fore, the present writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, we dismiss this writ petition. Consequent¬ly, the interim order passed in the case on 30.3.2007 stands vacated. There¬fore, the present writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, we dismiss this writ petition. Consequent¬ly, the interim order passed in the case on 30.3.2007 stands vacated. Pursuant to the said interim order, if the petitioner has worked, he shall be paid the salary for the period he worked, but he shall not be entitled to any benefit out of the service rendered pursuant to such interim order. A. K. SAMANTARAY, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.