Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 264 (JHR)

Ram Prasad Paswan v. Bharat Cooking Coal Limited

2024-03-05

NAVNEET KUMAR, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2024
JUDGMENT : The decision dated 8th February 2019 by the Project Officer of Bastacola Colliery was put to challenge in WP(S) No. 2789 of 2019 which has been dismissed by an order dated 28th November 2022. 2. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal primarily on the ground that the mistake in recording of the date of birth can be corrected at any stage. 3. Mr. Nitish Krishna, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant who appeared in the matriculation examination in the year 1979 claims that his correct dated of birth is 9th February 1962 which is recorded in the certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board on 9th November 2017 but the respondent No.3 ignored the said document which has been issued by a statutory authority and declined to correct the date of birth of the appellant in his service records. 4. Though the appellant contends that he could know about the wrong recording of his date of birth in his service records on 4th April 2017 when a severance letter was issued to him, we are of the opinion that this stand of the appellant is not correct and the writ petition filed by the appellant has rightly been dismissed as any dispute regarding date of birth cannot be entertained by the writ Court if raised at the fag end of the service. 5. This is well settled that any correction in the date of birth of an employee shall have serious consequences inasmuch as the other employees in the cadre may become junior to him and thus such correction in the date of birth of an employee at the fag end of service may also jeopardize the promotional prospects of other employees. Having regard to such serious consequences which may ensue on correcting the date of birth of an employee, the writ court shall adopt the policy of non-interference and would decline to issue any direction for correcting the date of birth of an employee. This is also too well settled that this is not a fundamental right or any government employee continue in service and the employer is entitled to frame service conditions which shall bind every employee. The reliance on the implementation instruction no. This is also too well settled that this is not a fundamental right or any government employee continue in service and the employer is entitled to frame service conditions which shall bind every employee. The reliance on the implementation instruction no. 76 which provides for determination of the age at the time of first appointment and review and determination of the date of birth of the existing employees framed by the Joint Bipartite Committee in Coal Industry (JBCCI) does not permit change in date of birth on a mere plea that it was wrongly recorded by the employer. 6. Pursuant to the direction issued by the writ court in WP(S) No.4909 of 2018, the respondent No.3 examined the service records and other relevant documents relating to the appellant and held that his date of birth cannot be corrected and that his correct date of birth is 15th September 1957 and not 9th February 1962. The respondent No.3 referred to the statutory Form B register which is maintained under the Mines Act, declaration made by the appellant in Form-A under CMPF Act and other documents such as identity card register. The BCCL has pleaded that the employees including the appellant were issued service record excerpts in the year 1987 inviting their objections as regards entries made thereunder but the appellant did not raise any objection thereto and put his signature over the service excerpts which record his date of birth on 15th September 1957. 7. The respondent No.3 has considered the representation for correction in the date of birth in the following manner: “I have examined the relevant documents and found that the petitioner was appointed on 07-01-1980. According to Form ‘B’ register, which is maintained under the Mines Act, his date birth is recorded as 15-09-1957 and he put his signature in Fore 'B' register acknowledging the date of birth recorded therein. Sri Ram Prasad Paswan has also submitted declaration in Form ‘A’ under CMPF Act at the time being enrolled as member of CMPF. In Form 'A', the petitioner has declared his date of birth as 15-09-1957 and he has also put his signature in the declaration form accepting and acknowledging his date of birth as 15-09-1957. Identity card register are being maintained for every employee. At the time of appointment, the name and other particulars of the petitioner was recorded. In Form 'A', the petitioner has declared his date of birth as 15-09-1957 and he has also put his signature in the declaration form accepting and acknowledging his date of birth as 15-09-1957. Identity card register are being maintained for every employee. At the time of appointment, the name and other particulars of the petitioner was recorded. His date of birth is recorded as 15-09-1957 in the identity card register. He has put his signature in identity card register acknowledging the date of birth recorded therein. In the year 1987 all the employees were issued service record excerpt and the management invited objection from all the employee regarding the entries made therein, accordingly the Sri Prasad was also issued service record excerpt in which his date of birth was recorded as 15-09-1957. He has put his signature in service record excerpt acknowledging the entries made therein. At the relevant time he has not raised any objection regarding his date of birth. In service record excerpt he has declared himself as metric pass, whereas according to him he appeared in matriculation examination in the year 1979 and he failed in said examination. He has not produced any educational certificate at the time of appointment and there is no entry regarding his educational qualification in service book. Form ‘B’ register which was prepared at the time of joining of the petitioner, is statutory documents, and the record of service as the same has duly been signed and authenticated by the petitioner. From the record it is clear that Form 'B' under the Mines Act and Form 'A' under the CMPF Act were prepared in the year 1980 itself when the petitioner was appointed. The identity card was also issued to the petitioner at the time of appointment, therefore the submission of the petitioner that he came to know about his date of birth recorded in company’s record when notice of superannuation was served to him, is not correct. Sri Prasad all along knowing about his date of birth recorded in company's record has not raised any objection during his entire service period but at the fag end of his service. There is no interpolation in the date of birth mentioned in the different records. There is no discrepancy found in any record. In all statutory record his date of birth is recorded as 15-09-1957.” 8. There is no interpolation in the date of birth mentioned in the different records. There is no discrepancy found in any record. In all statutory record his date of birth is recorded as 15-09-1957.” 8. With such overwhelming documentary evidence which records that the date of birth of the appellant is 15th September 1957, the Writ Court could not have interfered with the order dated 8th February 2019 passed by the respondent No.7 and, therefore, LPA No. 95 of 2023 is dismissed.