Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 781 (JHR)

Sargun Ram v. B. C. C. L.

2014-07-22

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2014
ORDER Heard counsel for the petitioner and the respondent -BCCL. 2. Petitioner has been superannuated on 1.7.2012 by notice dated 12.1.2012 issued by the Project Officer, Nichitpur Colliery, M/s BCCL, Dhanbad, respondent no.3. Petitioner's case is that he was appointed on 11.8.1986 as Miner Loader under the respondent- BCCL. He has submitted that during medical examination on 27.6.1986 he mentioned his age as 28 years which was accordingly recorded and thereafter after obtaining his thumb impression in the medical examination report, other reports were filled up by the official of the management. At no point the petitioner was informed that as per the Medical Examination his age has been assessed as 34 years. Petitioner, thereafter was transferred to Loyabad Coke Plant on 12.4.1998 and thereafter transferred to Nichitpur Colliery on 22.8.2008. Petitioner has stated that he came to know that in the service excerpts his date of birth has been wrongly recorded 27.6.1952 in place of 5.5.1958. He made representation for necessary correction. However, he has been surprised to receive the superannuation notice. 3. Petitioner has annexed Annexure-4, Matriculation tabulation register of Bihar School Examination Board of Secondary Annual Examination in 1975 in respect of BGS High School, Loyabad where against the petitioner's name the date of birth is recorded as 5.5.1958, though he had not passed Matriculation Examination. He has also enclosed Annexure 4/1, transfer certificate issued by the said Rajkiyakrit Basudeo Gandhi Smriti High School as per which his date of birth is shown as 5.5.1958 and it has also been recorded that petitioner had participated in the Secondary Examination. It is submitted that in such circumstances when he had already represented before the respondent- authorities his case ought to have been referred before the Apex Medical Board for determination of his age. Representation-2-dated 26.3.2012(Annexure-3) and dated 18.8.2012 (Annexure-5) have been enclosed in support of his aforesaid contention. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of M/s B.C.C.L & others vrs. Gopal Prasad Singh reported in 2012(2) J.L.J.R 231 to advance his argument. Representation-2-dated 26.3.2012(Annexure-3) and dated 18.8.2012 (Annexure-5) have been enclosed in support of his aforesaid contention. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of M/s B.C.C.L & others vrs. Gopal Prasad Singh reported in 2012(2) J.L.J.R 231 to advance his argument. It is submitted that in the said case learned Division Bench of this Court has held that if the Court is fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction made is in accordance with procedure prescribed and when a clear case relating to date of birth is made out on basis of clinching materials, then necessary direction to make a declaration of date of birth can be given. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of M/s B.C.C.L & others Vrs. Chhota Birsa Uranw reported in 2014(3)JLJR 182(SC). It is submitted that in the said case Hon'ble Supreme Court after taking into account the failure of the Appellant- Company to follow the procedure laid down in the Implementation Instruction No.76 held that it is the appellant's omission and the inaction which led to the dispute being raised in the courts at such a delayed stage and the High Court rightly quashed the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent- BCCL submitted that as per Medical Examination report which is at Annexure-1 and said to have been prepared in 1986 itself the thump impression of the candidate borne on both left hand column shows that the petitioner was conscious of his age determination i.e. 34 years at the time it was made. It is further submitted that the petitioner has produced the transfer certificate (Annexure-4/1) which has been issued on 30.4.2008 from the school in question showing clearly again that at no point of time earlier the petitioner had staked claim for correction of his date of birth. Annexure-4, the tabulation register has also been obtained on 11.5.2010 certified by the Principal of the said school. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the claim of the petitioner for correction of his date of birth at the fag end of his service should not be allowed in view of the law settled on this point. 6. Annexure-4, the tabulation register has also been obtained on 11.5.2010 certified by the Principal of the said school. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the claim of the petitioner for correction of his date of birth at the fag end of his service should not be allowed in view of the law settled on this point. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties and after having gone through the-3-materials on record, it appears that at the time of entry into the service in 1986 and during the course of age determination by the Medical Board petitioner himself had consciously accepted the age shown therein as 34 by putting the thumb impression on Annexure-1. Thereafter at no point of time petitioner raised the said dispute except after the superannuation notice was issued on 12.1.2012. The representation at Annexure-3 and 5 also shows that they have been made through Union on 26.3.2012 and again thereafter on 18.8.2012. The representation at Annexure-3 though makes reference of letter dated 8.9.2010 but again the transfer certificate which has been relied upon by the petitioner has been issued on 30.4.2008 by the Principal of the said school. The particulars of the said certificate shows that the date of admission of the petitioner is 15.3.1974 and date of leaving is 31.12.1974. Though, the petitioner has been shown to have taken part in the Annual Secondary Examination and his date of birth shown therein is 5.5.1958 but such document does not appear to have been produced at the time of entry into the service and only obtained in 2008 for correction of date of birth at the fag end of his service. 7. From the judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s B.C.C.L & others vrs. Gopal Prasad Singh(supra) it appears that there the said petitioner had produced the Matriculation certificate and in the record of Coal Mines Provident Fund(C.M.P.F) his date of birth was shown as 1955 in accord with the Matriculation certificate. 7. From the judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s B.C.C.L & others vrs. Gopal Prasad Singh(supra) it appears that there the said petitioner had produced the Matriculation certificate and in the record of Coal Mines Provident Fund(C.M.P.F) his date of birth was shown as 1955 in accord with the Matriculation certificate. In such circumstances, considering the judgment on that point, the L.P.A preferred by the respondent-employer was dismissed holding on facts that the records maintained in the office of the respondents lacks sanctity and in view of the date of birth of the said petitioner recorded in the Matriculation certificate and other records of C.M.P.F, the respondents ought to have taken steps for following the Implementation Instruction No.76 for determination of his correct date of birth, which they have failed to do and chosen to superannuate the petitioner prematurely. In the instant case, however petitioner does not seem to have any corroborative document said to have been produced at the time of entry into service or thereafter or even during determination of his age by the Medical Board. The certificate relied upon by the petitioner has been obtained in 2008 at-4-the fag end of his service. 8. From the judgment relied upon by the petitioner rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s B.C.C.L & others Vrs. Chhota Birsa Uranw(supra) it appears that the Hon'ble Court came to a definite conclusion that the dispute was not raised at the fag end of career and raised almost two decades back of superannuation and the respondent- employer had not followed the Implementation Instruction No.76. Such act of omission and inaction on the part of the respondents had led to the employee to raise the dispute at a belated stage and the High Court has rightly quashed the impugned order of premature retirement. In the present case, as has been observed herein above, petitioner has failed to show that at any early point of time he has raised his objection with regard to the wrong entry of date of birth. 9. In such circumstances, I do not find that the petitioner has made out a case of interference with the impugned order or for directing the respondents to correct his date of birth. 10. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.