Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1354 (CAL)

Ananga Mohan Ghosh v. Eastern Coalfields Ltd.

2010-11-24

TAPEN SEN

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. THE judgment of the Court was as follows: In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for an Order commanding upon the respondents to accept the petitioner's age as per the Admit Card issued by the West Bengal Board of Higher Secondary Education. 2. THE facts of the case, as pleaded by the petitioner, is that he was appointed on 23rd April, 1973 and although he had appeared for the Board Examinations at the time of his appointment, yet it was incorrectly recorded in the service record that he was a "School Final Pass". According to the petitioner, the Colliery was taken over by M/s. Eastern Coalfield Ltd. as a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. and thereafter nationalised under the provisions of the Coal Mines Nationalisation Act, 1973. 3. ACCORDING to the further case of the petitioner, the respondent authorities issued a Service Excerpt to all its employees including the petitioner on or about 7th March, 1987 along with two copies thereof. The petitioner has stated that his date of birth was wrongly recorded as "24 years as on 1973". In other words, the respondents reckoned his date of birth as 1949. 4. THE petitioner has stated that while returning a copy of the said Service Excerpt as per practice, he indicated the said mistake by writing that his date of birth was 29.1.1953. THE petitioner has submitted that he was under a bona fide belief that necessary corrections would be made in the Service Excerpts, a copy of which has been marked as Annexure- P/1. THE petitioner then followed up the matter with his superiors and he was always given to understand that his case stood on a different footing as he had unimpeachable evidence to support his claim to his date of birth being 29.1.1953 on the basis of his Higher Secondary Certificate and that he should not worry and that his case would be dealt with at the appropriate time. Despite such assurances, the petitioner's age was not corrected and therefore on 13th July, 2002, the petitioner filed a representation which was duly received by the respondents vide Annexure-P/2 on the same day. In the said representation, the petitioner reasserted that his date of birth was wrongly recorded and that it should be 29.1.1953. Despite such assurances, the petitioner's age was not corrected and therefore on 13th July, 2002, the petitioner filed a representation which was duly received by the respondents vide Annexure-P/2 on the same day. In the said representation, the petitioner reasserted that his date of birth was wrongly recorded and that it should be 29.1.1953. After having received the said representation, the Deputy Personal Manager, Dabor Colliery asked the petitioner to submit Certificates in support of his age for further action. This letter dated 29.7.2002 has been marked as Annexurc-P/3. The petitioner then submitted his Higher Secondary Examination Admit Card which showed his date of birth as 29.1.1953 but the respondents were not satisfied and asked him to produce the original. 5. THEREAFTER, by a further communication vide Annexure-P/4 issued on 13/16.8.2002, the petitioner was asked to appear before the said Deputy Personal Manager along with originals of all documents. According to the petitioner, the Original Admit Card, by passage of time, had been misplaced and therefore, upon payment of requisite fees, he applied before the Board of Secondary Education, West Bengal and obtained an authenticated Duplicate Copy of the Admit Card. The same has been brought on record as Annexure-P/5. 6. THE petitioner has stated that a Committee had been constituted to consider the grievances of the petitioner and the said Committee, after going through the records and verifying the process of obtaining the Admit Card, opined, vide letter dated 30.4.2004 (Annexure-P/6), that the petitioner's age may be considered on the basis of the Admit Card of the Higher Secondary Examination. This Committee consisted of (i) the Manager; (ii) THE Senior Accounts Officer and (iii) the Personal Manager of the Dabor Colliery. On 22/24.10.2005, the Personal Manager, Dabor Colliery however asked the petitioner to produce the Certificates to show as to when had he passed the School Final Examinations and as to why had he not raised the dispute in the Service Excerpt. This is Annexure-P/7. 7. IT appears that in reply thereto, the petitioner sent a letter on 28.10.2005 informing him that he had appeared in the Higher Secondary Examinations in the year 1972 for which supporting documents had already been submitted but in the Form-B Register, due to clerical mistake, his qualifications had been written as "S.F. Pass" and his date of birth had also been wrongly noted. He further stated that the School in which he had read, was a Higher Secondary School and that he had been unsuccessful in passing the Higher Secondary Examinations in the year 1972. He also stated that he had registered a complaint in the Welfare Office as well as on the Service Excerpt but nothing had been done. 8. A Note Sheet dated 25.11.2009 (Page 31 of the Writ Petition) (Annexure-P/9) has been brought on record. The Notings made by the Personal Manager, Dabor Colliery as well as by the Manager makes interesting reading. It reads as follows: "1. Sri A.M. Ghosh appeared H.S. (XI) Board in the year 1972, after passing 10th Class Exam but not passed before his appointment i.e. in the April 1973. Probably due to clerical mistake educational qualification has been written as S.F. Passed in the Service Excerpts. S.R.E. was prepared on 7.03.1987 and Sri A.M. Ghosh raised dispute with remarks in 1989 but due to late submission of the same case was not entertained. His date of birth in B Form is 24 years 1973. 2. Duplicate H.S. (XI) Board Admit Card appeared in 1972 Exam, from West Bengal Board of Secondary Education submitted by the person concerned for Age reference. He has submitted application for correction of D.O.B. as per H.S. Admit Card. 3. As per available documents, it has been appeared Sri A.M. Ghosh had never been appeared in S.F. Exam so question of submission of S.F. Passed Certificate does not arise. The date of birth as, per H.S* (XI) Board Admit Card is 29.1.1953 which may kindly be accepted. The proposal is placed before Dy. C.P.M., Salanpur Area for kind perusal and necessary action for approval of Competent Authority." (Quoted but emphasis by underlining is of this Court) It appears that thereafter on 2/3.3.2006 the Manager, Dabor Colliery, sent a letter to the Deputy Chief Personal Manager, Salanpur Area vide Annexure P/10 stating that he had sent a letter to the Secretary, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education for verification and a "letter" had been received from them certifying the date of birth of the petitioner as 29.1.1953. The "letter" referred to by the Manager in Annexure-P/10, and which is said to have been received by him from the Secretary of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education has been brought on record at Page 33 of the Writ Petition. The "letter" referred to by the Manager in Annexure-P/10, and which is said to have been received by him from the Secretary of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education has been brought on record at Page 33 of the Writ Petition. This letter informs the Manager, Dabor Colliery, that the date of birth of the petitioner was 29.1.1953 and that his Roll No. was "Assan (HU)-497 of H.S.-1972". 9. IT is the case of the petitioner that in spite of so many communications, the respondent authorities did not correct the petitioner's date of birth and after so many years, on 6/8.6.2007, they issued a letter vide Annexure-P/11 stating that in the Form-B Register, it was found that the same had been signed by the petitioner wherein his date of birth was recorded as "24 years on 1973", i.e. 1949 and that the Objection on the Service Excerpt was not raised which was issued Manager of the Colliery also duly took note of the fact that the Secretary of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education had sent a letter dated 16.2.2006 (Page 33) in which the petitioner's Roll No. was given and his date of birth had been mentioned as 29.1.1953. in 1987 and on the basts of the Form-B Register, his date of birth had been computerised in the system records as "24 years in 1973" I.e. 1949 which is to be accepted. In other words, the respondents refused to accept the petitioner's date of birth as 29.1.1953. 10. AN Affidavit-in-Opposition has been filed by the respondents who have stated that the Service Excerpt (ANnexure-P/1), showed that the petitioner had passed School Final. The petitioner did not dispute this aspect while returning the duplicate copy. They have however referred to ANnexure-P/10 and have stated that the Board of Secondary Education had stated that the petitioner was unsuccessful in the Higher Secondary Examination in 1972. It is their further case that in the Form-B Register, the age of the petitioner was recorded as "24 years as in 1973" and accordingly, his date of birth should be reckoned as 1949. They have also stated that the petitioner signed the Form-B Register without a demur. They have brought on record the extract photocopy of the Form-B Register. According to them, he signed thereon by accepting the fact that his date of birth was recorded as "24 years as on 1973". They have also stated that the petitioner signed the Form-B Register without a demur. They have brought on record the extract photocopy of the Form-B Register. According to them, he signed thereon by accepting the fact that his date of birth was recorded as "24 years as on 1973". They have further stated that the petitioner was appointed on 23rd April, 1973 and if he had appeared in the Higher Secondary Examinations in the year 1972, he could have produced the Admit Card in support of his claim but he produced a Duplicate Copy of the Admit Card issued by the Board on 31.7.2002 much after an opportunity was given to him to correct his date of birth. They have further stated that the petitioner was due to retire on and from 31.7.2009 but he has filed the Writ Petition towards the end of 2007 and therefore, the High Court should not interfere. They have relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on the issue that on grounds of delay the claim of the petitioner therein was rejected. They have supported their action taken vide ANnexure-P/11 and have stated that the Writ Petition should be dismissed. In the Affidavit-in-Reply, the petitioner has raised a grievance that even during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the respondents have issued a Notice of Superannuation which is bad in law. 11. HAVING, considered the rival submissions of the parties, this Court notices that in their Affidavit-in-Opposition, the respondents have not disputed the existence of Annexures-P/5, P/6, P/9., P/10 as well as Page 33 of the Writ Petition. These are documents of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education showing that the petitioner was born on 29.1.1953. 12. THESE facts were duly noted by the Committee Members as early as on 30.4.2004 vide Annexure-P/6 and thereafter on 29.11.2005, the Officers of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. themselves recorded that the petitioner had, raised his dispute with remarks in 1989 and they had themselves also recommended that the date of birth of the petitioner, as per the Admit Card (Annexure-P/5), may be accepted, Thereafter, the If, from the "Notings" quoted above, the Personal Manager and Manager of Dabor Colliery accepted the fact that the petitioner had raised the dispute with remarks in 1989, this obviously means that the petitioner had raised the dispute in 1989 itself. In spite of so many unimpeachable documents, it appears that the respondents took so many years and finally rejected the claim of the petitioner in 2007 vide Annexure-P/11. 13. THE action of the respondents therefore, in this case, is an exception to the general rule that age disputes being questions of fact should not normally be interfered with by the High Court. In this case, Annexure-P/5, P/6, P/9 and P/10 are documents and records which speak in favour of the claim of the petitioner that he was born on 29.1.1953. Moreover, the respondents had themselves admitted (see Para 10 supra) that the petitioner raised the dispute with remarks in 1989 and therefore it is absolutely incorrect on the part of the respondents to say that he had not raised any objection in the SRE (Service Records Excerpt) which was issued to him in 1987 as has been sought to be conveyed by Annexure-P/11. 14. UNDER such circumstances, the action of the respondents is held to be illegal and accordingly the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The Writ Petition is allowed and the authorities are directed to accept the petitioner's age as recorded and as mentioned not only in the Admit Card but also as mentioned in Annexure-P/6 (Observations of the Committee Members); P/9 (Noting made by the Personal Manager and Manager of Dabor Colliery); Annexure-P/10 (Letter of the Manager Dabor Colliery accepting the fact that he had received a letter from the Secretary, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education certifying that the petitioner's date of birth was 29.1.1953). 15. THE Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. THE respondents are directed to make the necessary changes and corrections in their own Records and not to harass the petitioner any further. Upon appropriate application(s) being made, urgent certified copy of this judgment, may be given/issued expeditiously subject to usual terms and conditions. Later-After the judgment was dictated in Court, the respondents made a prayer for stay. Having considered the facts and circumstances, prayer for stay is refused.