Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1766 (JHR)

Ram Jatan Singh v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited

2017-10-10

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2017
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for quashing the letter dated 30.12.2002 (Annexure-6), issued by the Respondent No. 3 pertaining to the notice of retirement of the petitioner and the petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondents to send the petitioner for medical examination as per the Implementation Instruction No. 7 for determining the age of the petitioner. 2. The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application, are that the petitioner was appointed in Jealgora Colliery and has been working as a Foreman. The date of birth of the petitioner in the official documents like I.D. Card, Coal Issue Card etc. has been recorded as 01.08.1948. It has been averred in the writ application that in pursuance to the policy decision, the petitioner was issued with the service excerpt, wherein, the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 01.08.1948 and when the petitioner was suffering from heart ailment, he submitted application for his medical examination and at that relevant point of time, the petitioner came to know that his date of birth is recorded as 01.07.1943 in the Form A.M.B. 1 by the Management as per Annexure-3 to the writ application. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation for correction of his date of birth from 01.07.1943 to 01.08.1948. Inspite of the several representations, no action was taken by the Management for correction of the date of birth of the petitioner. Thereafter, on 30.12.2002, the petitioner was issued with a notice of retirement that the petitioner would retire on attaining the age of 60 years on 30.06.2003. Being aggrieved by the notice of retirement, dated 30.12.2002 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), the petitioner left with no alternative has knocked the door of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the action of the Respondents-authorities in issuing the impugned notice of retirement, amounts to colourable exercise of power. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents by changing the date of birth of the petitioner from 01.08.1948 to 01.07.1943 has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner since the petitioner has been constrained to face civil/evil consequences being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents by changing the date of birth of the petitioner from 01.08.1948 to 01.07.1943 has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner since the petitioner has been constrained to face civil/evil consequences being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of the respondents in changing the date of birth of the petitioner unilaterally without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is in the teeth of celebrated judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in SCLJ (3) 1963 in the case of State of Orissa-versus-Dr. (Miss) Binapani Devi. 4. Controverting the assertions made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, stating therein, that the writ petition is hopelessly barred by limitation, since it has been challenged belatedly after superannuation of the petitioner from services and therefore, on that score, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It has further been submitted that the petitioner was appointed in Jealgora Colliery and his service book was opened and at the time of opening of the service book, the petitioner has put his signature and thumb impression. The date of birth of the petitioner as recorded in the employer''s record is 01.07.1943 and the date of commencement of his employment as per the service record is 20.05.1968. It has further been submitted that as per the Form B, which was provided by the respondents authorities to the petitioner at the time of employment, it was evident that the date of birth of the petitioner at the commencement of the employment, was 01.07.1943 as per Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. It has further been submitted that the service excerpt being serial no. 753, has been signed by the petitioner on 24.07.1987 and the same has been acknowledged by the petitioner in the service excerpts and the petitioner has also accepted his date of birth as 01.07.1943, as evident from the service excerpt vide Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. 5. Mr. Arpan Mishra, learned counsel for the Respondents has reiterated the submissions made in the counter affidavit. 5. Mr. Arpan Mishra, learned counsel for the Respondents has reiterated the submissions made in the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the respondents has assiduously submitted that it is the settled position of law that application for alteration of the recorded date of birth can only be entertained within a reasonable time from the time, it has been recorded. In the instant case, after retirement from service, in the year 2003 i.e. on 30.06.2003, after an inordinate delay, the petitioner has approached this Court for redressal of his grievances, which cannot be entertained in view of the settled position of law. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference, due to the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements : - (i) Admittedly, the date of birth as recorded in the Form B Register, as per Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, the date of birth is 01.07.1943 and the petitioner has put his signature and also the thumb impression on the said register, therefore, it is quite apparent that the petitioner was in the knowledge of the things that his date of birth has been recorded as 01.07.1943, therefore, the change of date of birth after retirement from services on the ground that the petitioner came to know about the alteration of the date of birth only at the time of issuance of notice of retirement, cannot be acceptable nor believe able. Law is also well-settled that the grievance of the petitioner for change of date of birth at the fag end of his service career cannot be entertained. It is also well-settled that the date of birth recorded in the Form B Register is conclusive piece of evidence for determination of the date of birth, unless proved unimpeachable piece of evidence like matriculation certificate is produced. In the instant case, the petitioner has not come forward with any unimpeachable evidence so as to dislodge the date of birth recorded in the Form B register as evident from Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. (ii) There is no gainsaying of the fact that the petitioner is not so sanguine about the fate of his case, therefore he took almost five years to challenge the notice of retirement. (ii) There is no gainsaying of the fact that the petitioner is not so sanguine about the fate of his case, therefore he took almost five years to challenge the notice of retirement. On that score also, the writ petition is not entertain able. 7. On a cumulative effect of the aforesaid reasons and as a logical sequitor, the challenge of the petitioner to Annexure-6 of the writ petition does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit, is hereby dismissed.