Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 421 (JHR)

Raghu Hajra v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.

2013-04-02

N.N.TIWARI

body2013
JUDGMENT The petitioner has prayed for quashing the notice dated 21.5.2010 (Annexure-3) issued under the signature of Project Officer, Munidih Colliery, Putki, District Dhanbad, whereby the petitioner has been directed to superannuate from the service prematurely w.e.f. 31st October, 2010 contrary to the entries of the petitioner's date of birth in the statutory Form-B Register and other service records prepared at the time of entry in service. According to the entry in the said statutory Form-B Register, the petitioner's due date of retirement is 1st November, 2015. The petitioner has also prayed for consequential reliefs. 2. The petitioner entered in the services of the respondents after his appointment as PRM Mazdoor at Kushtore Colliery, Dhanbad on 9th October, 1978. A Form-B Register was prepared clearly mentioning his date of birth as 23 years on 9th October, 1978. The said date of birth is also reflected in the identity card, service excerpts and other service records. The petitioner was subsequently transferred to Munidih Colliery of the BCCL. Suddenly, a notice dated 21.5.2010 was issued by the Project Officer, Munidih Colliery, Putki, District Dhanbad intimating the petitioner that he would retire on 1st November, 2010, i.e. five years prior to his actual date of retirement (1st November, 2015). 3. The petitioner challenged the said notice in this writ petition. It has been stated that the respondents cannot unilaterally change the service term/condition of the petitioner and alter his date of birth to his prejudice, without giving any notice or opportunity of representation. 4. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the said notice on the ground that the same has been issued arbitrarily, illegally and in violation of the principle of natural justice. 5. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents by filing counter affidavit. It has been stated, inter alia, that as per Non-Executive Information System (NEIS) record, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 9.10.1950 and he was to attain the age of superannuation of 60 years on 31.10.2010. The impugned letter was issued to the petitioner informing the same. It has been further stated that there were discrepancy in the entries in the identity cards and service excerpts and in view thereof the petitioner was earlier asked to appear before the Medical Board, but he did not appear. The impugned letter was issued to the petitioner informing the same. It has been further stated that there were discrepancy in the entries in the identity cards and service excerpts and in view thereof the petitioner was earlier asked to appear before the Medical Board, but he did not appear. The impugned notice informing the petitioner date of retirement (1st November, 2010) was based on the entry in NEIS record. The entry in the NEIS record was known to the petitioner since 2004 as would be evident from Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. But the petitioner did not make any objection and after a long time, has filed this writ petition after getting the said notice of retirement, at the fag end of service. The writ petition, in view thereof, is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is not disputed that in the statutory Form-B Register prepared at the time of entry, the petitioner's date of birth was mentioned as 9.10.1978. On that basis identity card and service excerpts were issued mentioning the same date of birth. There was no occasion for subsequent alteration in the date of birth. By the said alteration in the petitioner's date of birth, his tenure of service has been reduced to the prejudice of the petitioner. Admittedly, no notice informing the reason for alteration was ever served on the petitioner and he did not get any opportunity to file representation against such alteration. 8. It is settled law that any entry, to the prejudice of an employee, cannot be altered without informing reason and giving him opportunity of representation. 9. A plea has been taken by the respondents that according to the NEIS record, there was difference in the date of birth recorded in NEIS record and entry of date of birth reorded in statutory Form-B Register and for that purpose the petitioner was asked to appear before the Medical Board, but he did not appear. 10. In my view, there was no need for appearing before the Medical Board for determination of his date of birth in view of clear entry in the Form-B Register. Even if there was any erroneous entry in NEIS record regarding date of birth of the petitioner, the said entry cannot over-ride the entry made in the statutory Form-B Register. 11. In my view, there was no need for appearing before the Medical Board for determination of his date of birth in view of clear entry in the Form-B Register. Even if there was any erroneous entry in NEIS record regarding date of birth of the petitioner, the said entry cannot over-ride the entry made in the statutory Form-B Register. 11. In view of the above, I find no justification for making unilateral alteration in the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in the statutory Form-B Register to his prejudice and to force him to retire five years prior to his due date of retirement. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The notice dated 21.5.2010 is quashed. The respondents are directed to immediately reinstate the petitioner and pay his arrears of salary treating his service as continuous service till the petitioner attains the date of superannuation according to the entry in the statutory Form-B Register. The petitioner shall also be entitled for all other consequential benefits treating his service continuous, without any break.