Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 907 (JHR)

Sugrim Shaw v. Central Coalfield Limited

2015-08-03

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2015
Order In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 17.01.2007 passed by the respondent No. 5 so far as the petitioner is concerned whereby and whereunder the date of superannuation of the petitioner has been fixed as 31.01.2007. Further a direction has been sought for to treat the date of birth of the petitioner as 12.06.1955 as recorded in the C.M.P.F. records or in the alternative to refer the petitioner before a duly constituted a Medical Board for assessment of his age. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed on 13.07.1973 under the respondents as Wagon Loader in Dutta Colliery. Since the petitioner was an illiterate person, he could not produce his school leaving certificate and he had disclosed his date of birth as 12.05.1955 in support of which a horoscope was produced in order to make proper and correct entry in the service records of the employee. The respondents in the year 1987-1988 had supplied the service sheet to its employees. The petitioner was also served with a service excerpt on 26.04.1987 from which the petitioner could gather that his date of birth is wrongly recorded as 02.01.1947 and the date of appointment has also been wrongly recorded as 12.09.1977. The petitioner approached the authorities for correction of his date of birth as 12.06.1955 but subsequently the petitioner could come to know that the same was never corrected when superannuation notice dated 17.01.2007 was served upon the petitioner informing the petitioner that he was to retire on 31.01.2007. 3. Heard Mrs. M. M. Pal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Mrs. Pal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the service excerpt which has been supplied to the petitioner there was as apparent error, inasmuch as, both the appointment as well as the date of birth of the petitioner was wrongly recorded to which the petitioner had raised his grievance bringing to the notice of the authorities that the date of birth of the petitioner is 12.05.1955. It has further been submitted that the actual and correct date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 12.05.1955 in the C.M.P.F. record but inspite of the best effort of the petitioner the respondents are not producing the said record deliberately in order to deprive the petitioner of further period of service to which the petitioner is entitled to. It has also been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since there is lack of consistency in the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in various documents it would have been apt to refer the petitioner to the Apex Medical Board for assessment of his age which could then have been treated to be a conclusive proof of age. In this context learned senior counsel has referred to the report of the Joint Bipartite Committee for the Coal Industries. 5. Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the date of birth in the statutory Form B register is the conclusive proof of age and the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded in the said register as 01.01.1947 and on the basis of the date of birth recorded the petitioner has been superannuated from service. It has also been submitted that in the various documents which have been appended to the counter affidavit it could be deciphered that there is a consistent evidence to show that the date of birth of the petitioner is 02.01.1947. In such circumstance, therefore, it has been submitted that the petitioner has rightly been superannuated on and from 31.01.2007 and the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner for assessment of the age of the petitioner by the Apex Medical Board is to be negated. 6. The statutory Form B register which is maintained under the Mines Act and its Rules framed therein reflects the date of birth of the petitioner as 02.01.1947. The recording of the date of birth of the petitioner in the Form B register is clear and legible and there is no interpolation, over writing or correction so as to cause doubt upon the veracity, truthfulness or otherwise on the date of birth so recorded. The recording of the date of birth of the petitioner in the Form B register is clear and legible and there is no interpolation, over writing or correction so as to cause doubt upon the veracity, truthfulness or otherwise on the date of birth so recorded. In the service book the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 02.01.1947 as well as in the form relating to Coal Mines Pension Scheme and which was dated 09.06.1988 the date of birth has been mentioned as 02.01.1947. 7. Much stress has been laid by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner with respect to the date of birth recorded in C.M.P.F. record and which according to her is not being produced by the respondents and in this context she has referred to the case of National Insurance Company Limited, New Delhi v. Jugal Kishore And Others reported in (1988) 1 SCC 626 wherein it was held that the document which may be helpful in doing justice must be produced before the court by party in possession of the same more so when the party is government or instrumentality of the State. Reference has also been made to the case of Jiwan Kishore v. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another reported in AIR 1980 (SC) 1251 wherein it was held that the age as assessed by the Medical Board appointed by the employer can be accepted. So far as the case of the National Insurance Company Limited (Supra) is concerned, the same is with respect to production of a document which in this case is the C.M.P.F. record for coming to a just conclusion with respect to the date of birth of the petitioner. This judgment so far as the present case is concerned is not applicable, inasmuch as, even on production of the C.M.P.F. records the date of birth recorded in the Form B register as well as service excerpt and various other documents appended to the counter affidavit would not be obliterated. So far as the judgment in Jiwan Kishore v. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another (Supra) is concerned, the factual matrix of the said case was also otherwise. In the case under reference a Medical Board was constituted which had assessed the age of the employee and considering the wide discrepancies in the date of birth in various records such assessment was taken into consideration. In the case under reference a Medical Board was constituted which had assessed the age of the employee and considering the wide discrepancies in the date of birth in various records such assessment was taken into consideration. However, in the present case such state has not been reached although it has been vehemently argued by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the discrepancy in the date of birth makes the petitioner eligible for assessment of his age before the Apex Medical Board. Such contention is rejected solely on the ground that there is a clinching evidence on the record to suggest that the date of birth of the petitioner is 02.01.1947 and not what has been claimed by the petitioner. Since the Form B register maintained under the Mines Act is a statutory document the authenticity and legitimacy of the date of birth recorded in the said Form B register inspires confidence and in such circumstances no illegality has been committed by the respondents in superannuating the petitioner from service treating his date of birth as 02.01.1947. 8. As cumulative result of the discussions made hereinabove both factual and legal, I do not find any merit in this writ application which is, accordingly, dismissed.