Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 89 (JHR)

Rasdhari Singh v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited

2018-01-10

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2018
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. – In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to treat his date of birth as 21.02.1955 and thereby allow him to work till his rightful date of superannuation. 2. The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed in the services of respondents as Piece Rated employee on 06.03.1983 on compassionate ground on account of death of his elder brother-Shyam Bihari Prasad. The date of birth of petitioner was recorded in the service documents as 21.02.1955 including the concerned register, Identification Certificate and Service Excerpt, as is evident from Annexure-1 to the writ petition. After rendering satisfactory services, the petitioner was placed in Time Rated scale and accordingly posted to the present post of Dumper khalasi/Fitter Helper in Grade E at Kusunda VI on 04/07.01.2002. During August,2007, for Master Health Check up (periodical medical examination), Form P was issued wherein the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 04.11.1948 and age 59 years, as is evident from Annexure-3 to the said petition. Having known to the said entry, the petitioner immediately made representation before the respondents for necessary correction of date of birth, as is evident from Annexure-4 to the said petition, but the said representation of petitioner fell on deaf ear. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy, has been constrained to knock the door of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 4. During course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of respondents in changing the date of birth of petitioner at the fag end of service career amounts to arbitrary exercise of power, which has visited the petitioner with evil consequences. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondents should have accepted the School Leaving Certificate for determination of date of birth, but in view of date of birth recorded in Form B register, the petitioner has lost seven years of his services. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondents should have accepted the School Leaving Certificate for determination of date of birth, but in view of date of birth recorded in Form B register, the petitioner has lost seven years of his services. 5. Controverting the averment made in the writ petition, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, wherein it has been, inter alia, submitted that since the petitioner has already superannuated from services as back as in the month of November,2008, the writ petition has become infructuous. It has been submitted in the counter affidavit that at the time of entering in the services, the petitioner disclosed his age as 34 years on 04.11.1982 meaning thereby his date of birth is 04.11.1948 and the age disclosed by him has been taken into consideration by the management for all practical purposes. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the prayer of the petitioner in view of following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncement: During course of hearing, the original Form B register was perused by this Court and on perusal of the same, there is absolutely no variance or discrepancy in Annexure-A with that of the original Form B register. Since the age of the petitioner was recorded as 34 years on 04.11.1982, the respondents have rightly calculated the date of birth as 04.11.1948. Basing on that entry in the Form B register, the petitioner has been allowed to superannuate from services. There is absolutely no infirmity or illegality by the respondents so as to warrant any interference by this Court. So far as determination of date of birth at the fag end of service career is concerned, law is fairly well settled in the cases of Union of India Vrs. Harnam Singh , (1993) 2 SCC 162 ; Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Others Vrs. Dinabandhu Manjudar & Another , (1995) 4 SCC 172 ; State of Maharashtra & Another Vrs. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble & Ors , (2010) 14 SCC 423 and State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vrs. Premlal Shrivas , (2011) 9 SCC 664 , wherein Hon''ble Apex Court- have been pleased to consistently hold that Court should be loath to issue direction for correction of date of birth at the fag end of service career. 7. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble & Ors , (2010) 14 SCC 423 and State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vrs. Premlal Shrivas , (2011) 9 SCC 664 , wherein Hon''ble Apex Court- have been pleased to consistently hold that Court should be loath to issue direction for correction of date of birth at the fag end of service career. 7. In view of reasons stated herein above and as a logical sequitur to the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the date of birth dispute of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merits.