Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 233 (JHR)

Shasti Mondal v. Eastern Coalfield Ltd.

2013-02-13

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
Order Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has sought correction in date of birth recorded in the Service Book as 22 years as on 28th September, 1989 which should be treated as 27th March, 1969 in view of the matriculation certificate contained at Annexure-2, issued by Bihar School Examination Board on 7th August, 1985. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that he joined the services of the respondent as 'Underground Loader' on 23rd December, 1989 under Clause 9.4.3 of N.C.W.A-IV. From the service excerpts provided to him, he has come to know that his date of birth is recorded as 22 years as on 28th September, 1989 (Annexure-1). He, however, submits that the said service excerpts itself recorded as being I.Sc. passed and in fact his matriculation certificate annexed as Annexure-2, issued in the year 1985, also shows that his date of birth is 27th March, 1969. He further submits that these anomalies in his date of birth have been reported to the respondent and the Personal Manager, Rajpura Colliery, Mugma, District-Dhanbad has also written to the Deputy Ch. Personal Manager, Kumardhubi Colliery, Mugma Area, to look into the matter vide Annexure-5 dated 11th April, 2005. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has raised his grievance relating to his date of birth immediately on notice. He is not at the verge of the retirement. He relied upon the most authenticated document i.e. matriculation certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board that of the year 1985. 4. The respondents, on the other hand, have contested the claim of the petitioner stating that the service excerpt have prepared in his presence but he has not objected to the same at the relevant time even he also put his signature over the same. 5. Be that as it may, in the wake of matriculation certificate issued in the year 1985 showing his date of birth as on 27th March, 1969, recording of his age in the service book requires reconsideration by the respondents. Since the petitioner has raised his aforesaid grievance within time and not at the verge of his retirement, it cannot be said to be belated. The same would not have been acceptable if it was made just before his retirement as is strongly deprecated by the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. 6. Since the petitioner has raised his aforesaid grievance within time and not at the verge of his retirement, it cannot be said to be belated. The same would not have been acceptable if it was made just before his retirement as is strongly deprecated by the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. 6. In the facts and circumstances, the matter is remanded to the respondents to consider the grievances of the petitioner relating to correction in his date of birth after due verification from the competent authority as per the matriculation certificate which is said to be issued in the year 1985 and pass an appropriate and reasoned order within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.