Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 424 (JHR)

Chakradhar Kumhar v. BCCL

2014-03-26

R.BANUMATHI, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
JUDGMENT By Court -This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the order dated 9.8.2012 passed in W.P.(S) No.6806 of 2011, in and by which learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant, declining to interfere with the order of superannuation of the appellant on 31.12.2011. 2. The appellant was appointed in the service of the respondents on 7.11.1991 as Piece Rated Worker Group-I, vide letter dated 7.11.1991. According to the appellant, his date of birth was duly entered as 16.12.1961 in all records. In the month of October, 2010, a seniority list was published in the Notice Board, wherein appellant's date of birth was stated as 16.12.1951. The appellant, vide letter dated 9.10.2010, objected to the same and requested for correction of the same to 16.12.1961. The grievance of the appellant is that the respondents wrongly considered the date of birth of the appellant as 16.12.1951 and compelled him to retire on 31.12.2011, as per the letter of superannuation issued on 6.7.2011. The appellant also filed his objection dated 6.8.2011 but nothing has been done. Challenging the order of compulsory superannuation, the appellant filed W.P.(S) No.6806 of 2011 and the same was dismissed on 9.8.2012, holding that at the time when the appellant 2.was appointed as Piece rated Worker, his age was stated as 40 years and consequently his date of retirement is only on 31.12.2011. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant has filed this Letters Patent Appeal. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned Single failed to take into consideration the health card, salary slip, service excerpts and other documents which substantially establish the date of birth of the appellant as 16th December, 1961. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Single Judge has also failed to take into consideration the School Leaving Certificate, wherein, the date of birth of the appellant is mentioned as 16th December, 1961 and for the reasons best known to the Management they have altered the date of birth as 16th December, 1951, causing serious prejudice to the appellant and the learned Single Judge did not keep in view the documents relied upon by the appellant. 5. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that that the learned Single Judge also did not take into consideration the alleged interpolation, made in the date of birth of the appellant, which is at column no.3 of the original form-B. It was submitted that the original Form-B was in possession of the respondents at all point of time and if any interpolation with respect to the date of birth of the appellant is done in Form B, an adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the respondent-Management. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Mr. Ananda Sen has drawn our attention to the statutory Form A-Coal Mines Provident Fund Form and also Annexure C-Coal Mines Family Pension Scheme, wherein the date of birth of the appellant is stated as 16th December, 1951. The learned counsel referred to those statutory forms and also the contemporary document i.e. report of the Medical Board at the time when the appellant joined the services wherein his date of birth is stated as 16th December, 1951. The learned Single Judge has rightly upheld the date of superannuation of the appellant as 31.12.2011. 7. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Even though the appellant contends that as per the School Leaving Certificate his date of birth is 16.12.1961, the appellant has not produced the School Leaving Certificate before the Management at the time when he entered into the service. The learned Single Judge has not believed the School leaving Certificate produced by the appellant before the Writ Court. As per the opinion of the Medical Board, which was given upon examination of the appellant at the time when he joined the service i.e. 7th November, 1991 stating the age of the appellant as 40 years, at the time of examination. As per the contemporary document available, the appellant was aged 40 years, when he joined on 7th November, 1991. 8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, in Form A - Coal Mines Provident Fund Form, the date of birth of the appellant is stated as 16th December, 1951. Similarly in Coal Mines Family Pension Scheme, the date of birth of the appellant is stated as 16th December, 1951. All these statutory Forms are maintained by the authorities of the respondents. Similarly in Coal Mines Family Pension Scheme, the date of birth of the appellant is stated as 16th December, 1951. All these statutory Forms are maintained by the authorities of the respondents. In those statutory Forms, the appellant has also signed and thereby acknowledged his date of birth as 16th December, 1951. 9. Relying upon other documents, which are based on health card, salary slip, service excerpts, learned counsel for the appellant contends that in those documents his date of birth is stated to be 16th December, 1961. As 4.rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the appellant might have got entered wrong date of birth in the health card etc. and might have furnished incorrect date of birth for the purpose of pay slip or there might be some clerical mistake in those documents, but, in view of the documents being the Statutory Form-A and B, in which the appellant himself has recorded his date of birth as 16th December, 1951, the contention of the appellant that his date of birth as 16th December, 1961 has been accepted by the respondents, cannot be accepted. 10. We have perused the xerox copy of Form B annexed along with the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-Management. There are some interpolations in the date of birth and in the date of termination/leaving of employment, so as to read “16.12.1951” in Column no.3 and “15.12.2011” in column no.10. But, merely because there is interpolation, no adverse inference can be drawn against the Management, for the reason that it is not known whether such correction was made even at the time when the document i.e. Form B came into existence. Keeping in view the other statutory forms i.e. Coal Mines Provident Fund Form and Coal Mines Family Pension Scheme, no weightage could be attached to the alleged interpolation made in Form-B. 11. We find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and, accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.