Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 216 (JHR)

Ram Das Mahto v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.

2010-02-09

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2010
JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the parties and with their consent, this application is disposed of at the stage of Admission. The petitioner in this writ application has challenged the letter dated 07.02.2004 (Annexure-3), whereby he was informed of the date of his superannuation as 7.02.2004, which according to the petitioner, is totally misleading and incorrect. The petitioner is a workman under the Respondent-BCCL employed in the Colliery. He was appointed under the respondents on 02.01.1973. The petitioner's contention is that at the time of his appointment, his service documents including Form-B register was opened in which his date of birth was recorded as 03.12.1949. The petitioner accordingly was to retire in December, 2009. The grievance of the petitioner is that by manipulating his service records, the respondents have sought to superannuate him even before he could attain the date of superannuation. Counsel for the petitioner informs that the date of birth, which has been recorded in the service records as also mentioned in other documents such as I.D. Cards, health cards and even as appearing in the copy of the service excerpts prepared and given to the petitioner in July 1987, do suggest that the date of birth was entered as 03.12.1949 and as it appears, the manipulation has been carried out by the respondents behind the petitioner's back. As per the the counter affidavit, the stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner was though appointed in January 1973 and at the time of his appointment, his service records was opened, but the column pertaining to the date of birth of the petitioner as well as of 18 other similarly situated employees in Form-B register, was found blank. Upon detection of the aforesaid omission, the management issued a notice (Annexure-A), on 23.10.1983 to all such workmen directing them to appear before the specially constituted Medical Board for assessment of their respective age. The petitioner, along with other workmen, also appeared before the Medical Board for his examination and as per the assessment made by the Medical Board, the petitioner's age was assessed as 40 years on the date of the medical examination, i.e. on 27.10.1983. The petitioner, along with other workmen, also appeared before the Medical Board for his examination and as per the assessment made by the Medical Board, the petitioner's age was assessed as 40 years on the date of the medical examination, i.e. on 27.10.1983. It is further explained that the age of the petitioner was expected to be recorded, according to the assessment made by the Medical Board, in his service records, but later, it came to notice that the officer concerned, who was in-charge of the documents including the service records of the employees, in connivance with the employees, had manipulated the service records by inserting incorrect and misleading date of birth of the employees including that of the petitioner. Upon such detection, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the officer concerned and he was punished. Counsel for the respondents submits that under such circumstances, the petitioner's claim is totally unfounded and he is not entitled to any relief as claimed for. As it appears, though a copy of the counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit has been served upon the counsel for the petitioner, but there is no specific denial by the petitioner, of the respondent's contention that a general notice was issued by the management directing the concerned workmen, including the petitioner, to appear before the Medical Board in 1983 for assessment of age. There is no denial of the statement that on the date of his medical examination before the Medical Board, the petitioner's age was assessed as 40 years by the Medical Board. It appears from Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of the respondents, which is a copy of Form-B register which was opened at the time of appointment of the petitioner as well as the other employees whose names transpire in the excerpts, that the column pertaining to their date of birth is totally blank. This document has not been challenged or disputed by the petitioner. The above facts and circumstances, as it appears, demonstrates that at the time of appointment, the petitioner's date of birth could not be mentioned at all in the service records, including the Form-B register. The petitioner's age, therefore, had to be assessed by the specially constituted Medical Board before whom he had appeared and as per assessment made, he was found to be of 40 years of age on the date of his superannuation by the Board. The petitioner's age, therefore, had to be assessed by the specially constituted Medical Board before whom he had appeared and as per assessment made, he was found to be of 40 years of age on the date of his superannuation by the Board. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any material to support the petitioner's contention that the respondents have manipulated his date of birth in his service records. There is no merit in this writ application and the same is, therefore, dismissed.