Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 819 (JHR)

Steel Authority of India Limited v. Ram Das Rajak

2010-08-18

D.N.PATEL, SUSHIL HARKAULI

body2010
ORDER : 1. By the impugned order of the learned single Judge, the date of birth of the writ Petitioner, who was initially employed in 1970, has been directed to be corrected in accordance with the date of birth recorded in the writ Petitioner's Higher Secondary Certificate of 1965. 2. The learned Single Judge has held that the writ Petitioner, who is the Respondent before us, will be governed by the terms of the National Coal Wage Agreement-3 (hereinafter referred as N.C.W.A.-3). 3. The learned Single Judge has thereafter relied on Implementation Instruction No. 76 of N.C.W.A.-3, especially Clause (B) thereof, which provides for 'review determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees'. 4. According to the said Implementation Instruction No. 76 (B), in case of existing employees the date of birth recorded in the (i) Matriculation Certificate or (ii) Higher Secondary Certificate or (iii) Board of Middle Pass Certificate, will be treated as correct, provided such certificates were issued by the concerned University/Board/Institution prior to the date of employment. 5. This means that the employee passing such examination after employment, does not deliberately give a wrong date of birth, for delaying his date of superannuation. 6. Thus under the Agreement i.e. N.C.W.A.-3, which is binding upon the Appellant-employer, what has to be seen was whether the certificate of higher secondary was actually issued by the concerned Board/Institution and secondly, whether it was issued prior to the date of employment. 7. The date of employment in this case made in 1970 and the certificate is of the year 1965, that is much prior to the date of employment. 8. It is not the case of the Appellant that the certificate is bogus or fabricated. Accordingly, the employer was obliged by the binding agreement to review the age determination as above. 9. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellants, which is based on Clause (A) (ii), is that once date of birth has been recorded at the time of appointment, it cannot be altered under any circumstances. Accordingly, the employer was obliged by the binding agreement to review the age determination as above. 9. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellants, which is based on Clause (A) (ii), is that once date of birth has been recorded at the time of appointment, it cannot be altered under any circumstances. Clause (A) (ii) is reproduced for ready reference herein below: (A) Determination of the age at the time of appointment: (i) Matriculates (ii) Non-matriculates but educated In the case of appointees who have pursued studies in a recognized educational institution, the date of birth recorded in the school leaving certificate, shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances. 10. We are unable to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant. 11. In our opinion, the non-alteration is permissible only if at the time of appointment, date of birth is recorded on the basis of the school certificate. In this case, the date of birth was not recorded on that basis at the time of initial appointment, but was recorded on the basis of some medical examination. 12. Considering what has been stated above, this appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed.