Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1579 (JHR)

Manju Devi v. Central Coalfields Limited

2017-09-01

ANANDA SEN

body2017
ORDER : The petitioner is challenging her date of birth, which has been recorded in her service book. The petitioner claims that her date of birth is 17.02.1975. In support of her claim, the petitioner has relied upon Annexure-1, which is a communication, wherein it has been mentioned that the date of birth of the petitioner has been declared by her husband as 17.02.1975, for recording the same in the service book of the husband of the petitioner. She also relies upon a birth certificate. 2. Be it noted that the petitioner has been appointed on compassionate ground on the death of her husband, who died in harness on 14.12.2003. The petitioner was appointed vide Annexure-3, i.e. an offer of appointment dated 18.03.2010. Since the petitioner is non-matric, she was directed to appear before the Medical Board for assessing her age. The report of the Medical Board has been brought on record by the respondents (Annexure-A) as a part of the counter affidavit. Medical Board was constituted by Chief Medical Officer, Head of the Department (Gynecology), Head of the Department (Physician), Head of the Department (Ortho), Head of the Department (Dental), Doctor from Department of Radiology and other authorities. The report of the said Medical Board concluded that the age of the petitioner is 40 to 45 years as on 21.05.2008. On the basis of the said assessment of the Medical Board the date of birth of the petitioner has been entered in the service book as 21.11.1965. The petitioner is challenging the same. 3. As mentioned earlier, the only document, which the petitioner is relying upon is a letter at Annexure-1 and a Birth Certificate of this petitioner, which was issued in the year 2003. 4. The birth certificate of the petitioner, which was issued in the year 2003, cannot be looked into because of the specific provisions laid down under section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, for the delayed registration of births and deaths, which reads as under:- “13(3). Any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an order made by a Magistrate of the first class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee.” 5. Any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an order made by a Magistrate of the first class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee.” 5. The said sub-section provides that any date of births and deaths, which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence, shall only be registered on an order made by a Magistrate of the first class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee. 6. In the instant case, the copy of the birth certificate issued in 2003 reflects the date of birth of the petitioner as 17.02.1975. Said certificate do not suggest that date of birth of the petitioner has been registered on the basis of any order made by a Magistrate of the first class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee, as lays down under section 13 (3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. The pleadings of the petitioner also do not suggest compliance of Section 13(3) of the Act of 1969. 7. Thus, the birth certificate, which the petitioner is relying, has not been issued in compliance of the provisions of section 13 (3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, cannot be a ground to change or alter the date of birth of the petitioner, which has been assessed by the Medical Board. 8. Further Implementation Instructions of 1976 of the Company suggest that when a person is non-matric and do not possess any school leaving certificate, he or she has to be examined by a Medical Board for assessment of age. The Medical Board has examined and assessed the age of this petitioner as 40 to 45 years as on 21.05.2008. The petitioner is challenging the said assessment and is praying for declaration from this Court to the effect that the date of birth of the petitioner is, in fact, 17.02.1975. 9. For giving such declaration there has to be an adjudication after taking evidence, both oral and documentary. The petitioner is challenging the said assessment and is praying for declaration from this Court to the effect that the date of birth of the petitioner is, in fact, 17.02.1975. 9. For giving such declaration there has to be an adjudication after taking evidence, both oral and documentary. In the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot declare the date of birth of the petitioner as 17.02.1975, mere so when the birth certificate has been obtained much after her birth, that too without following the provisions of the Act. 10. Thus, I find that in this writ application no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Thus, this writ petition is dismissed. 11. However, the petitioner, if so advised, may approach the Civil Court for a proper declaration regarding her date of birth.