Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1000 (JHR)

Chhutu Dutta v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd

2012-07-17

D.N.PATEL

body2012
Judgment 1. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is challenging the order passed by the respondents which is annexed as Annexure –3 to the memo of petition dated 10.10.2008 whereby a notice was given to the petitioner that petitioner is reaching the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years, on 31st January, 2009 and, therefore, he will be retiring on 31st January, 2009. This communication has been challenged in the instant writ petition. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have taken signatures of the petitioner on blank document which is known as FormB maintained by the respondents under Section 48 of the Mines Act, 1952, whereby and whereunder as per the service excerpts, which is annexed as Annexure – 1 to the memo of petition, the date of birth of the petitioner is 20 years as on 31st January, 1973 and, therefore, the date of retirement of the petitioner will be 31st January, 2013 instead of 31st January, 2009. Counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that one Jaffery Committee was appointed by the respondents to rectify the mistake in the record of the respondents about the date of birth of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioners relied upon two decisions rendered by this Court which reported as 2009(3) AIR (Jhr), R94 and 2007(3) AIR Jhr 113 and on the basis of these two judgments, it is submitted that the order passed by respondents at annexure3 to the memo of petition deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner is entitled to continue in service upto 31st January, 2013. 3. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents have controverted FormB under Section 48 of the Mines Act, 1952 which reflects the actual date of birth of the employee which indicates 24 years of age of the petitioner as on 31st January, 1973. This document is at AnnexureA to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. Similarly Annexure B is the copy of Register of employee which reflects 24 years of age of the petitioner as on 31st January, 1973 which is also signed by the petitioner with his photograph. Similarly, Annexure C is Form 'B' in relation to the petitioner which also reflects the date of birth of the petitioner as 31st January, 1949. This document also contains the signature and photograph of the petitioner. Similarly, Annexure C is Form 'B' in relation to the petitioner which also reflects the date of birth of the petitioner as 31st January, 1949. This document also contains the signature and photograph of the petitioner. Annexure D to the counter affidavit is an identification certificate which also reflects the date of birth of the petitioner as 30149'. This document also contains signature and photograph of the petitioner. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents that petitioner has already retired from the services of the respondents as on 31st January, 2009 and an amount of gratuity payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has already been paid. The amount paid towards the gratuity is a sum of Rs.3,50,000/to which the petitioner has acknowledged receipt of the said amount. This receipt has been annexed as Annexure E to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. Thus, the retirement benefits have already been accepted by the petitioner. This amount was paid to the petitioner way back on 17th February, 2009. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that Annexure F is the service excerpts of the petitioner and it has been stated in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit that it has been manipulated by the petitioner and wrongly in Column 6(1), it has been mentioned as 20 years of age as on 31st January, 1973. This is a manipulated document, otherwise looking to the earlier Annexures A, B, C and D, petitioner's age was 24 years as on 31st January, 1973 and in some others documents exactly the same date of birth has been mentioned like the document at Annexure C to the counter affidavit. The earlier annexures, namely A, B, C and D, which reflect the correct date of birth of the petitioner, these documents are having photographs of the petitioner and there is also signature of the petitioner. Thus, there was no question of any error on the part of the respondents whatsoever being raised. All these documents have been clearly signed by the petitioner at the relevant times and therefore, he has been retired on 31st January, 2009 on attaining the age of 60 years and, therefore, petition may not be entertained by this Court. 4. Thus, there was no question of any error on the part of the respondents whatsoever being raised. All these documents have been clearly signed by the petitioner at the relevant times and therefore, he has been retired on 31st January, 2009 on attaining the age of 60 years and, therefore, petition may not be entertained by this Court. 4. Counsel for the respondents relied upon two decisions of this Court which are 2002(1) J.C.R. 418 and 2006(1) JCR 418 and submitted that FormB is the statutory form maintained under the Mines Act and the entries made therein cannot be altered. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ application mainly for the following grounds: a) The petitioner joined the service of the respondents in the year 1972. Thereafter petitioner served for several years. Several documents have been signed by the petitioner as stated in the counter after including the statutory FormB which is maintained by the respondents under Section 48 of the Mines Act, 1952. Petitioner was given a notice on 10.10.2008, which is annexed as Annexure – 3 to the memo of petition, that he is attaining the age of 60 years on st January, 2009 and he is going to retire upon attaining the age of superannuation on 31st January, 2009. b) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Annexure F to the counter affidavit, date of birth of the petitioner is 31st January, 1953 and, therefore, petitioner's age of superannuation is 31st January, 2013 and, therefore, the order at annexure3 dated 10.10.2008 deserves to be quashed and set aside. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that looking to several documents Annexures A, B, C and D, one by one, it appears that the petitioner age is 24 years as on 31st January, 1973. Thus, his date of birth is 31st January, 1949. These documents are having photograph of the petitioner and they have also been signed by the present petitioner. Besides, no objection was ever raised by the petitioner against those documents earlier. Thus, his date of birth is 31st January, 1949. These documents are having photograph of the petitioner and they have also been signed by the present petitioner. Besides, no objection was ever raised by the petitioner against those documents earlier. c) It further appears that looking to Annexure – B which contains FormB register maintained by the respondents under the Mines Rules, 1952, in this document also, in a column No.4, petitioner's age was mentioned as 24 years as on 31st January, 1973 and the date of birth is written as 31st January, 1949'. This document is having photograph of the petitioner and duly signed by the petitioner. Besides, no objection has ever been raised by the petitioner as against this document. d) Looking to the document at Annexure C to the counter affidavit, this document is also pertaining to the petitioner. Several details have been given with respect to age of the petitioner. In its column 4, date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 31st January, 1949. Annexure C is also having photograph and signature of the petitioner. This document is a contemporary document which is not a new document. There is no reason to disbelieve this document which is duly signed by the petitioner and and there is also photograph of the petitioner on this document. e) Looking to the document at Annexure D, it also bears the date of birth of the petitioner as 31st January, 1949. This document is also signed by the petitioner and there is photograph of the petitioner also on this document. f) Looking to the document at Annexure E, it appears that upon superannuation, the petitioner received gratuity of Rs.3,50,000/and acknowledged receipt of the same on 17.02.2009. This amount has been accepted by the petitioner without raising any objection. g) Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that looking to Annexure F, especially Column No.6(1) thereof, the age of the petitioner is mentioned as 20 years as on 31st January, 1973 and therefore, his superannuation will be on 31st January, 2013 because he attains the age of 60 years on that day and, therefore, the impugned order at annexure3 deserves to be quashed and set aside. This contention is not accepted by this Court looking to earlier Annexures A, B, C, and D. What is stated in Annexure F is not true. This contention is not accepted by this Court looking to earlier Annexures A, B, C, and D. What is stated in Annexure F is not true. Moreover, as stated in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit, this document has been manipulated by the petitioner. Looking to these facts also, this document at Annexure F is not a reliable document. h) Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions reported in 2007(3) AIR, Jhr. 113 as well as 2009(3) AIR Jhr R94. This Court has gone through both of these judgments, but looking to the peculiar facts of the present case, the documents at Annexures A, B, C and D have been duly signed by the petitioner and there is photograph of the petitioner on those documents and on all those documents i.e. Annexures A, B, C and D, the date of the petitioner has been clearly mentioned as 31st January, 1949' with other details about the petitioner, it is clear that the the petitioner's age is 31st January, 1949 and he has rightly been retired on 31st January, 2009. Even the petitioner has never raised any objection regarding his date of birth earlier in pursuance of the execution of the documents at Annexures A, B, C and D which also contain his signature and photograph. Hence, the present case is on different on fact from the above cited two decisions and, therefore, these two judgments are not applicable in the present case. This type of argument cannot be accepted by this Court. i) It further appears from the above facts that now the petitioner has been superannuated from service on 31st January, 2009. He has also been paid his gratuity amount of Rs.3,50,000/to which he has also acknowledged his receipt on 17.02.2009. j) Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that looking to Annexure F specially column 6(1) thereof, the age of the petitioner is mentioned as 20 years as on 31st January, 1973 and, therefore, his superannuation will be 31st January, 2013 because he attains the age of 60 years on that day and, therefore, the order at Annexure 3 deserves to be quashed and set aside. This contention is not accepted by this Court looking to the earlier Anenxures A, B, C and D. What is stated in Annexure F is not true, because the earlier documents at Annexures A, B, C and D are duly signed by the present petitioner with his photograph. Moreover, as stated in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit, this document at Annexure F has been manipulated by the petitioner. Looking to these facts also, this document at Annexure F is not reliable document. 6. In view of these facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, I see no reason to entertain this writ application. Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.