Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 575 (JHR)

Gopal Prasad Singh v. BCCL, Dhanbad

2011-06-30

N.N.TIWARI

body2011
ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to correct his date of birth in all the relevant service records as per the Matriculation Certificate. 2. According to the petitioner, he passed matriculation examination in the year 1971. In the Matriculation Certificate, his date of birth was mentioned as 03.11.1955. After matriculation, he entered into the services of the respondents and appointed on the post of Clerk on 18.09.1973. In the year 1987, the respondents had prepared service excerpts of the petitioner giving his personal details, including his educational qualification as matric. However, in the column of date of birth, his age was mentioned as 23 years as on 1974, which was not in accordance with the date of birth mentioned in his Matriculation Certificate. The petitioner pointed out the said mistake in the column of date of birth and requested for correction of the same. It has been further stated that in the record of Coal Mines Provident Fund (CMPF for short), petitioner’s date of birth has been mentioned as ‘1955’, which is in accordance with the matriculation certificate. But the concerned authority of Dahibari Colliery did not correct the petitioner’s date of birth in the service excerpts and other records at that time. They started process of correcting his date of birth in the month of July,2009 on a fresh representation of the petitioner dated 1.7.2009. The said authority prepared the details of personal particulars of the petitioner mentioning his date of birth as 03.11.1955 and appointment made on the basis of Matriculation Certificate. The same was forwarded to the Area Officer by letter being Reference No.PO: NLOCPDBOCP: NS: 09:316 dated 12/18.09.2009. But inspite of the same, no action was taken for correcting the petitioner’s date of birth. 3. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that Implementation Instruction No.76 of National Coal Wage Agreement-III provides procedure for determination/verification of age of employees. It has been clearly mentioned that for determination of age in the case of the appointee, who has passed matriculation or equivalent examination, the date of birth recorded in the said certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstance. It has been clearly mentioned that for determination of age in the case of the appointee, who has passed matriculation or equivalent examination, the date of birth recorded in the said certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstance. The petitioner had passed matriculation examination before his entry in the service in the year 1971 and his service records show that his appointment was on the basis of Matriculation Certificate. He further submitted that the Full Bench of this Court while deciding the case of ‘Kamta Pandey Vrs. M/s. BCCL & Ors.’[2007(3)JLJR 726], has held that the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate is a conclusive proof of age and no other records-as both the parties are bound by Implementation Instruction No.76 of National Coal Wage Agreement, which is bilateral agreement between the Company and the Unions. The respondents are bound by the said provision of Implementation Instruction No.76 and the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kamta pandey Vrs. M/s. BCCL & Ors.(supra). A direction is, thus, required to be issued to the respondents to make necessary correction in the service records on the basis of the entry of date of birth in the Matriculation Certificate of the petitioner. 4. The respondents have opposed the petitioner’s prayer stating, inter alia, that at the time of entry in the service, the petitioner had not produced Matriculation Certificate and the same was obtained subsequently in the year 2009. The petitioner had himself disclosed his age as 23 years as on 1974 and accordingly the statutory Form ‘B’ register was prepared mentioning the said age. The petitioner had also signed the said Form ‘B’ register. He is estopped from challenging the said entry of date of birth in his service records. It has been further stated that the petitioner has raised his grievance in July,2009 after expiry of 36 years. The date of birth recorded in Form ‘B’ register and service excerpts is final and such dispute is not entertainable after such a long time. 5. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, referred to and relied on the following decisions: 6. The date of birth recorded in Form ‘B’ register and service excerpts is final and such dispute is not entertainable after such a long time. 5. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, referred to and relied on the following decisions: 6. I have heard learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the parties and considered the facts and materials on record as well as the respective submissions made on behalf of the parties. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1973. In the service excerpts given to the petitioner(Annexure-2), his educational qualification is clearly mentioned as matric’. It is, thus, clear that he was appointed on the basis of his Matriculation Certificate. On perusal of the Matriculation Certificate, I find that the date of birth of the petitioner is clearly mentioned as 3rd November,1955. It is further (I) Civil Paswan Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.’[2005(2)JCR 245(Jhr.)] [:2005 (2) JLJR 344] (II) ‘Karu Nonia Vrs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors.’[2002(1)JCR 418(Jhr.)] (III) ‘Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vrs. S.M.Jadhav & Anr.’[2001(2)Jhr CR 1(SC)251] (IV) ‘Daya Ram Gope Vrs. Central Coalfields Ltd. & Ors.’[2002(3)JCR 339(Jhr.)] (V) ‘Management of Heavy Engineering Corpn.Ltd., Ranchi Vrs. Mrs. Sarita Narayan & Ors.’[2005(2)JCR 418(Jhr.)] 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and considered the facts and materials on record as the respective submission made on behalf of the parties. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1973. In the service excepts givin to the petitioner (Annexure-2), his educational qualification is clearly mentioned as matric. It is, thus, clear that he was appointed on the basis of his Matriculation Certificate. On perusal of the Matriculation Certificate, I find that the date of birth of the petitioner is clearly mentioned as 3rd November, 1955. It is further dmitted by the respondents that in the Coal Mines Provident Fund declaration, the year of birth has been mentioned as ‘1955’. Particulars of the employees are recorded in the Coal Mines Provident Fund on the basis of the details furnished by the employer. On perusal of Annexure-4 -that is the details prepared by the respondents and signed by the Personnel Manager, it is clearly mentioned that old Form ‘B’ register of initial place of posting is not available at the Colliery of R.K.Unit, Dahibari Colliery. On perusal of Annexure-4 -that is the details prepared by the respondents and signed by the Personnel Manager, it is clearly mentioned that old Form ‘B’ register of initial place of posting is not available at the Colliery of R.K.Unit, Dahibari Colliery. The respondents along with their counter affidavit have produced Xerox copy of new Form ‘B’ register relating to the petitioner(Annexure-A). On perusal of Annexure-A, I find that the date of birth was originally mentioned as 30 years as on 1974 and that was penned through without any signature of the authority and just below the column of date of birth it has been mentioned as 23 years as on 1974 as per LPC No.23 of 3.2.1986 of Dahibari Colliery. Further, the date of appointment has been clearly mentioned as 18.9.1973. The Form ‘B’ register produced before this Court admittedly is a new one, prepared in 1986 with cutting in the date of birth without signature and showing the date of birth on the basis of LPC of Dahibari Colliery dated 3.2.1986. Lacks sanctity of an authentic record. 7. Implementation Instruction No.76 of National Coal Wage Agreement-III provides for determination of age at the time of appointment. The same is reproduced below: “Implementation Instruction No.76 Procedure for determination/verification of Age of Employees (A) Determination of the age at the time of appointment (i) Matriculates In the case of appointees who have passed Matriculation or equivalent examination the date of birth recorded in the said Certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstance.” 8. The basis of said Instruction is bilateral agreement between the Company and the Union of the employees and is binding on both. 9. On plain reading of the said Implementation Instruction No.76, it is clear that in case of appointee, who has passed matriculation or equivalent examination, the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstance. It is, therefore, not the entry made in register Form ‘B’ or any other records, rather the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate has been accepted as a conclusive proof of date of birth. It is, therefore, not the entry made in register Form ‘B’ or any other records, rather the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate has been accepted as a conclusive proof of date of birth. In that view, if there is service excerpts or Form ‘B’ register even signed by the employee mentioning the date of birth contrary to that recorded in Matriculation Certificate cannot be said to be conclusive and the date of birth recorded in Matriculation Certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth. 10. Similar question was raised before and decided by the Full Bench of this Court in Kamta Pandey Vrs. M/s. BCCL & Ors.(supra). The Full Bench of this Court answered the same by holding that the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate is a conclusive proof of age and no other records, including service records-as both the parties are governed by Implementation Instruction No.76 of National Coal Wage Agreement-III. 11. In Civil Paswan Vrs State of Jharkhand & Ors.(supra), the said Implementation Instruction was not the subject matter and, as such, the said decision has no relevance to the facts of the instant case. 12. The decision in Karu Nonia Vrs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors.(supra) is an order passed by the single Judge and the same is in conflict with the decision of the Full Bench of this Court. The fact is also not identical. 13. The decisions in Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vrs. S.M.Jadhav & Anr. (supra), Daya Ram Gope Vrs. Central Coalfields Ltd. & Ors.(supra) and Management of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., Ranchi Vrs. Mrs. Sarita Narayan & Ors.(supra) were rendered on different fact situation and the same have no application and relevance to the facts of the instant case. 14. In the instant case, the respondents have not produced the original Form ‘B’ register, prepared at the time of the petitioner’s appointment. The copy of Form ‘B’ register, which is produced as Annexure-A, came in existence in 1986 and the basis of the date of birth as mentioned therein is Last Pay Certificate -which is not relevant document for determining the date of birth according to the Implementation Instruction No.76. The petitioner had passed the matriculation examination in 1971 and from service excerpts, it is clear that his appointment was on the basis of Matriculation qualification. The petitioner had passed the matriculation examination in 1971 and from service excerpts, it is clear that his appointment was on the basis of Matriculation qualification. In his case, therefore, date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate has to be treated as correct date of birth according to the said Implementation Instruction No.76 and it cannot be altered under any circumstance as also held by the Full Bench of this Court in Kamta pandey case(supra). 15. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to correct the petitioner's date of birth wrongly recorded in the Form ‘B’ register and other relevant records, according to the date of birth recorded in his Matriculation Certificate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 16. However, there shall be no order as to costs.