Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 344 (JHR)

Balram Singh v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.

2014-03-05

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2014
Order Herd learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner joined as Junior Steno in Kuya Colliery under respondent-BCCL on 31.01.1973. According to him, at the time of entry in service, his date of birth was recorded as 13.7.1956 in Form B register, service excerpts, CMPF declaration form and Identity Card, which are enclosed in Annexure 3 series. However, the petitioner came to know later on that in a computer chart prepared by the respondents, against his name the date of birth has wrongly been shown as 10th May,1947. He, therefore, approached this Court in WP(S) No. 3441/2001 which was disposed of on 1st August,2001 with observation that though the Court was not inclined to interfere with the chart impugned but if the respondents act on such unauthenticated chart, the petitioner may raise grievance before the competent authority/court of law. The petitioner, however, preferred another writ petition being WP(S) No.5959/2006 once again alleging that his date of birth has wrongly been fed in data system and respondents are not rectifying the same despite representation made on his behalf. The said writ petition was also disposed of by an order dated 5.12.2006 directing the Company to examine and consider the representation of the petitioner within a stipulated period and if the claim of the petitioner is found genuine, he shall be given the benefit of age, however, if the claim is to be rejected, it should be by a reasoned order. The said representation has been rejected vide Annexure 6 dated 15/16th 01.2007, which is also under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. The petitioner is also aggrieved by his premature retirement treating his date of birth as 10.5.1947. He has prayed for the consequential benefits upon setting aside the impugned order, since according to him, he ought to have continued in service till 2016 on the basis of his date of birth recorded at the time of entry in service. The petitioner has submitted that the respondents' documents are computerized chart, which shows the incorrect date of birth of the petitioner, Annexure A to the counter affidavit. Identity card register again shows incorrect date of birth of the petitioner. It is submitted that the original documents at the time of entry in service have not been relied upon by the respondents. It is admitted by the petitioner that he is not a matriculate. 4. Identity card register again shows incorrect date of birth of the petitioner. It is submitted that the original documents at the time of entry in service have not been relied upon by the respondents. It is admitted by the petitioner that he is not a matriculate. 4. Counsel for the respondent-BCCL has, however, submitted that the document, which is being relied upon by the petitioner, Annexure10 to the rejoinder to the counter affidavit, would show that the said entry in the aforesaid documents cannot be relied upon. Relating to Annexure-9, i.e. the document in Form B produced by the petitioner, it is submitted that against the name of the petitioner after the figure “13”, “7” and “56” have been introduced later on. There is no entry against the name of other employees under the said column No.4 relating to the age showing any date of birth recorded therein, however, only age of such employee is recorded in double digit. It is further submitted that the documents, which have been annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit and identity card register, would show that the petitioner himself counter signed the entries in the year 1981, where his date of birth has been shown as 10th May,1947. On inquiry from the office of CMPF, it also reveals that the details relating to the petitioner's date of birth are not available. Therefore, it is submitted that at best the claim of the petitioner is based upon the documents, which are doubtful in nature and the determination of the aforesaid issue cannot be made in exercise of writ jurisdiction, as the same are based upon disputed questions of fact. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record including the documents relied upon by the petitioner and the respondents. 6. The petitioner has relied upon firstly Form B said to have been prepared at the time of entry in service, Annexure-9. On perusal of the said Annexure-9, it appears that column no.4 relates to the age and sex of the individual employees, against whom such entries are made. In the case of the petitioner after the digit “13”, digit “7” and “56” has been shown. In rest of the entries under the same column 4, only the age of the concerned employees are shown respectively from top 13,32,25,25,30,41 etc. In the case of the petitioner after the digit “13”, digit “7” and “56” has been shown. In rest of the entries under the same column 4, only the age of the concerned employees are shown respectively from top 13,32,25,25,30,41 etc. The aforesaid document, therefore, does not appear to be reliable documents so far as the entries relating to the age of the petitioner is concerned. 7. The document, which has been annexed to the counter affidavit of the respondents as Annexure-B, is said to be the identity card register, which shows the date of birth of the petitioner as 10.5.1947 and date of entry in service as 31.1.1973, which has been counter signed by the petitioner on 18.5.1981. The other documents, which are relied by the petitioner as Annexure 3 series, are said to be the service excerpts prepared but no dates are shown in the said documents. The other document, which has been annexed as Annexure 3, relating to the particulars of family under Coal Mines Family Pension Scheme, 1971, is also a document, which does not bear any year entry. Apart from the above, the identification certificate enclosed as Annexure 3 series , is also a form filled up by the employee himself, which is counter signed by the concerned official of the respondent Coal Company. 8. Therefore, on these disputed documents, the respondents appeared to have rejected the claim of the petitioner by passing a reasoned order on 15/16.1.2007. Having perused the reasoned order, it does not appear that it suffers from nonapplication of mind and nonconsideration of the ground raised by the petitioner. 9. The petitioner has also relied upon a Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Karu Nonia Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2012(1) JCR 418 (Jhr.) to submit that entry made in the date of birth in statutory Form B, cannot be changed even by the employer after certain period. 10. As has been observed, from perusal of the entries made in Form-B, relied upon by the petitioner as contained in Annexure-9, the same do not inspire confidence that they are reliable documents so as to adjudge the correct date of birth of the petitioner for the purpose of superannuation under the employment of the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to make out any case of interference in the impugned order. 11. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to make out any case of interference in the impugned order. 11. This writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.