Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 470 (JHR)

Nizamuddin v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited

2011-06-09

N.N.TIWARI

body2011
Order The petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned notice of his premature retirement dated 24th August, 2010 (Annexure-2), whereby the petitioner has been arbitrarily superannuated with effect from 31st December, 2010 whereas the petitioner's due date of retirement is December, 2018, as per the entries in his service record. 2. According to the petitioner, the respondents have illegally forced him to retire from service before attaining the age of retirement. 3. Earlier when the case was taken up, it was emphatically asserted by the respondents that according to the service record the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31st December, 2010 and he has accordingly retired with effect from that date. 4. The respondent-BCCL, thereafter, was asked to produce the original statutory Form-B Register and the respondents have produced the original Form-B Register in the Court and a photocopy of the relevant page has been filed in this Court and is kept on record. On perusal of the entry in respect of the petitioner, I find that as on 4th March, 1981, his age was recorded 25 years. According to the respondents the petitioner's date of birth on that basis comes to 4th March, 1956. The respondents have admitted that according "to the said entry the petitioner shall retire on 4th March, 2016 and he has been made to retire with effect from 31st December, 2010 by Annexure-2 by mistake. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents conceded that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service till March, 2016 and Annexure-2 was wrongly issued contrary to the entry of date of birth of the petitioner recorded in statutory register Form-B, which is the authentic service record of the employee. 6. The respondents had earlier filed their counter affidavit, stating, inter alia, that in all the records of the petitioner, his initial entry relating to date of birth has been penned through and new entry has been made without any signature of any person. So far as the entry in the Register Form-B is concerned, the date of birth/ age of the petitioner is not legible. The same was disputed by the petitioner. The respondents were then asked to produce the original Register Form-B, which has been produced in this Court today. On perusal of the original Register Form-B, I do not find any cutting in the register. The same was disputed by the petitioner. The respondents were then asked to produce the original Register Form-B, which has been produced in this Court today. On perusal of the original Register Form-B, I do not find any cutting in the register. The entry in Form-B register regarding the age of the petitioner is also clearly legible. The statement made in the counter affidavit by the respondents is, thus, apparently false and baseless. 7. Having heard the parties and considering the facts and material on record, I find that the impugned notice dated 24th August, 2010 (Annexure-2) is wholly arbitrary, perverse and illegal. Annexure-2 is, thus, quashed. The writ petition is allowed. 8. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be deemed to be in continuous service and shall further continue in the service till attaining the age of superannuation which admittedly is said to be 4th March, 2016. The respondents shall allow the petitioner to resume his duties forthwith and shall pay his arrears of salary with interest at the bank rate within two weeks. The respondents shall also pay a quantified sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner for causing him loss by forcing him to file this writ petition and mental agony and harassment by permanently retiring him. The said amount shall be paid to the petitioner alongwith arrears of his salary within the said period. The respondent BCCL shall be at liberty to recover the said sum from the erring official(s). 9. Since the impugned order has not only put an employee to harassment, the irresponsible act of concerned officer has also brought disrepute to the BCCL, which is a Central Government Undertaking. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director is, therefore, directed to set up an enquiry and take deterrent action against the person responsible for issuing Annexure-2. 10. The office of this Court shall draw a suo motu proceeding of contempt and issue notice to Ghanshyam Prasad Sinha, son of late M.P. Sinha. resident of DGMS Colony, near Shiv Mandir. P.O.P.S. & District-Dhanbad, working as Welfare Inspector at Kusunda Area of M/s BCCL, who appears to have sworn a false affidavit supporting Annexure-2, contrary to the relevant entry in the statutory Register Form-B.