Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 363 (JHR)

Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Gopal Prasad Singh

2012-03-14

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, PRAKASH TATIA

body2012
JUDGMENT Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.-The appellant herein is aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 30.6.2011 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2208 of 2010 whereby and whereunder respondents/appellants herein have been 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 the order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner/respondent herein had approached this Court through the instant writ petition for a direction to the respondents to correct his date of birth in all relevant service records as per the Matriculation certificate. The writ petitioner had pleaded that as per the Matriculation Certificate his date of birth was mentioned as 3.11.1955 and he entered into the services of the respondents/appellants herein on the post of Clerk on 18.9.1973. The case of the writ petitioner is that in the year 1987, the respondents/appellants had prepared service excerpts of the petitioner giving his personal details including his Educational Qualifications as Matric. However, in the column of the date of birth his age was mentioned as 23 years as on 1974 which was not in accordance with date of birth as mentioned in his Matriculation Certificate. It is, also, stated that the record of Coal Mines Provident Fund also showed that the petitioner's date of birth is mentioned as 1955' i.e. in accordance with Matriculation Certificate. However, instead of correcting his date of birth on the basis of his Matriculation Certificate as 3.11.1955, no step was taken on the part of the respondents/appellants, which has constrained the petitioner to approach this Court by way of the instant writ petition [W.P.(S) No. 2208 of 2010]. 3. However, instead of correcting his date of birth on the basis of his Matriculation Certificate as 3.11.1955, no step was taken on the part of the respondents/appellants, which has constrained the petitioner to approach this Court by way of the instant writ petition [W.P.(S) No. 2208 of 2010]. 3. It is urged by the respondents/ appellants herein that learned Single Judge has committed serious error in directing the appellants to correct the petitioner's date of birth in the relevant records primarily on the ground:- (i) that the petitioner has raised the dispute at the fag end of service in the year 2010 although he was appointed in 1973 when it was disclosed by him that his age was 23 years in the year 1974; (ii) that even in •the year 1986 when service excerpts were prepared, his age was confirmed as 23 years as on 1974 and as such, petitioner has estopped from raising the said dispute when he was accepted it even in the year 1986; and (iii) It has been further urged that learned Single Judge has incorrectly applied the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kamta Pandey vs. M/s BCCL & Ors. reported in 2007(3) JLJR 726 in view of the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court (Division Bench as well as Single Bench), which is as under:- (i) Civil Paswan vs. State of Jharkhand & Others, reported in [ 2005(2) JCR 245 (Jhr.)] [ : 2005(4) JLJR 344 ]. (ii) Karu Nonia vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Others, reported in [ 2002(1) JCR 418 (Jhr.)][: 2002(1) JLJR 798 ]. (iii) Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. S.M. Jadhav & Anr., reported in [2001 (2) JCR CR 1 (SC}251]. (iv) Daya Ram Gope vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. & Others, reported in [ 2002(3) JCR 339 (Jhr.)]. (v) Management of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., Ranchi vs. Mrs. Sarita Narayan & Others, reported in [ 2003(4) JCR 602 (Jhr.)] [ : 2003(4) JLJR 709 ]. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the respondents/appellants hereinabove submitted that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law and is fit to be set aside. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the facts of the case including the judgments referred on behalf of the appellants. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the respondents/appellants hereinabove submitted that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law and is fit to be set aside. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the facts of the case including the judgments referred on behalf of the appellants. It appears that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1973' and in the service excerpts given to the petitioner Educational Qualification was mentioned as Matric Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on the basis of his Matriculation Certificate. It is also not disputed by the appellants that in the Coal Mines Provident Fund declaration the date of birth of the petitioner/respondent herein is mentioned as 1955. In his Matriculation Certificate, his date of birth is 3rd November, 1955. The record maintained in the Coal Mines Provident Fund Office is based on the details furnished by the Employer. The learned Single Judge has taken into account that the old Form-B register containing initial place of posting of the petitioner is not available at the Colliery of R.K. Unit, Dahibari Colliery, instead a Xerox-copy of new Form-B register relating to the petitioner was produced alongwith counter affidavit filed by the respondents/ appellants herein, which was prepared in the year 1986. Even in the said Form-B register, the learned Single Judge has found 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 is recorded 23 years as on 1974 as per the LPC No. 23 of 3.2.1986 of Dahibari Colliery. The Form-B register, which was produced before the learned Single Judge was found to be a new one, which was prepared in 1986 with cutting in the date of birth entry without signature and showing the date of birth on the basis of LPC of Dahibari Colliery dated 3.2.1986 referred hereinabove. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, come to a conclusion that the said documents lacks sanctity of an authentic record. On the other hand, the Implementation Instruction No. 76 of National Coal Wage Agreement-III provides for determination of age at the time of appointment. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, come to a conclusion that the said documents lacks sanctity of an authentic record. On the other hand, the Implementation Instruction No. 76 of National Coal Wage Agreement-III provides for determination of age at the time of appointment. The same has been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge as well wherein the date of birth in Matriculation Certificate has to be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstance. 6. The learned Single Judge in the wake of aforesaid clear findings of fact has relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Kamta Pandey (supra), wherein also it has been held that the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate is a conclusive proof of age, taking into account that both the parties are governed by Implementation Instruction No. 76 of National Coal Wage Agreement-III. The judgment relied upon by the appellants herein have also been taken into account by the learned Single Judge. In the Full Bench judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Kamta Pandey (supra) the proposition of law as made out on the reading of the aforesaid judgments, as noted above in paragraph-27 is that normally an employee will not be permitted to apply for change of his date of birth at the fag end of his service career. However, it has been further clarified in the said paragraph-27 that Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that if the Court is fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed and when a clear case relating to the date of birth is made out on the basis of clinching materials, then necessary direction to make a declaration of the said date of birth can be given. 7. From perusal of the impugned judgment, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was fully satisfied that a clear case of correction of date of birth is made out on the part of the petitioner. The learned Single Judge has gone through the service excerpts of the petitioner where Educational Qualification has clearly been mentioned as Matric. His Matriculation Certificate bears the date of birth 3rd November, 1955. The learned Single Judge has gone through the service excerpts of the petitioner where Educational Qualification has clearly been mentioned as Matric. His Matriculation Certificate bears the date of birth 3rd November, 1955. It 'is also corroborated by Coal Mines Provident Fund declaration, based on the details furnished by the Employer/Appellants, showing his date of birth as 1955. Whereas the Form-B register relied upon by the respondents/ appellants herein were prepared in the year 1986, as the old Form-B register was not available. Even the said register shows that there was a cutting in the date of the birth without signature showing his date of birth as 23 years as or, 1974 on the basis of the LPC No. 23 dated 3.2.1986 at Dahibari Colliery. Therefore, the learned Single Judge, on perusal of the records, arrived at the findings that the document produced by the respondents/employer lacks sanctity of an authentic record and in the wake of the Implementation Instruction No. 76 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-III, the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in the Matriculation Certificate should be treated as his correct date of birth based on the aforesaid findings of fact. The learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order directing the respondents/appellants herein to correct the date of birth of the petitioner wrongly recorded in Form-B register and other relevant records, according to the date of birth recorded in his Matriculation Certificate. The writ petitioner has, therefore, made a clear case to the satisfaction of the learned Single Judge that if the petitioner's date of birth is not correctly recorded as per his Matriculatior. Certificate, it would amount to grave injustice to the writ petitioner. 8. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge as the appellants have failed to make out any ground for sustaining their challenge to the incorrectness/illegality to the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. Accordingly, this IPA is dismissed.