Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1589 (JHR)

Workman Nirua Tatin v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited

2017-09-01

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2017
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. – In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing letter dated 24.05.2006 whereby she has been informed that she would attain the age of 60 years on 17.10.2006 as such her date of superannuation is 31.10.2006 and further for direction upon the respondents to refer the age dispute to Apex Medical Board. 2. The facts, as disclosed in the writ application, in brief is that at the time of appointment of petitioner as Wagon Loader on 17.10.1974, her date of birth was kept blank in her service record and further in the Identity Card, which was issued on 04.09.1975, her date of birth was kept blank. But, to the utter surprise, a letter dated 24.05.2006 was served upon the petitioner stating therein that she would attain the age of 60 years on 17.10.2006 as such her date of superannuation is 31.10.2006. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner represented before the respondents-authorities for redressal of her grievances, but, it did not evoke any response. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court for redressal of her grievances under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Heard Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kaustav Panda, learned counsel for the respondents-BCCL. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has retired prematurely without conducting any medical board, in utter violation of provisions of bipartite agreement i.e. N.C.W.A III in particular Instruction No. 76. It has further been submitted that it is settled principles of law that in case of any dispute regarding date of birth, medical board is to be constituted, but, the same has been denied as such her rightful claim has been denied. 6. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the statutory record of the company, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 17.10.1946 and further in the service excerpt as well as in the NEIS records of the company, the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 17.10.1946, which has been acknowledged by the petitioner by putting her thump impression. It has further been submitted that the petitioner never raised any objection with regard to discrepancy in date of birth and after serving notice of superannuation, he raked up the issue, which is not tenable in law. 7. It has further been submitted that the petitioner never raised any objection with regard to discrepancy in date of birth and after serving notice of superannuation, he raked up the issue, which is not tenable in law. 7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the documents on records, it appears that in the statutory Form B register the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 17.10.1946 and further in the other service excerpts and in NEIS Records of the company, the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 17.10.1946, which was never challenged by the petitioner before service of notice of superannuation dated 24.05.2006. It is settled principles of law that date of birth recorded by the company in the statutory form B register and other service excerpts cannot be disturbed at the fag end of service, hence, request for constituting Medical Board for determination of date of birth at such belated stage cannot be acceded to. 8. Viewed thus, I do not find illegality and irregularity in the impugned letter dated 24.05.2006 and the same does not warrant interference by this Court. 9. Hence, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit is dismissed.