SHEIKH YUSUF Vs. CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR, WESTERN COAL LIMITED AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Chief Managing Director, Western Coal Limited And Others
Click here to view full judgement.
Vandana Kasrekar, J. -
(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the orders dated 21.03.2016, 22.03.2016 and 20.04.2016.
(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Badli Tub Loader/Temporary D.P.R. in the Department of W.C.L. in Kanhan Area, Tehsil Parasiya vide order dated 25.09.1983, since then the petitioner is performing his duty efficiently. The date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 22.10.1956 in the service record whereas the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 24.05.1962, his date of birth is recorded as 24.05.1962 in the office of Registrar (Birth and Death) in Chhindwara District. As per the school record and in the transfer certificate his date of birth is recorded as 24.05.1962 then the petitioner came to know his date of birth has wrongly been recorded in the service rule. Thereafter 1989 to 1992 the petitioner has wrote number of letters to the respondents, to correct his date of birth, but nothing was done. As no action was taken by the respondents in the matter, the petitioner, therefore, filed a writ petition i.e. WP No.13225/2009 before this Court to direct the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner from 22.10.1956 to 24.05.1962. On 18.12.2010, the petitioner got himself examined by the District Medical Board. The said writ petition was disposed off vide order dated 06.05.2015 with the direction to the respondent authorities to take up the matter afresh and get the same decided through the Age Determination Committee (A.D.C.). The authority would also be at liberty to decide the matter by taking all facts and circumstances into consideration and thereafter take a decision expeditiously in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months. The petitioner served the copy of the same on the respondents on 13.05.2015 thereafter on 13.06.2015, the Age Determination Committee was constituted and he was asked to remain present before the Age Determination Committee on 10.07.2015 at 11.00 am. On 10.07.2015, the Age Determination Committee (A.D.C.), conducted medical examination of the petitioner and all certificates in original were also examined by the said committee. On 10.07.2015, the respondents have passed an order thereby declaring the date of birth of the petitioner as 1956. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application on 21.10.2015 to supply the copy of the report submitted by the A.D.C but the same was not supplied. The petitioner thereafter applied under Right to Information Act, 2005. Thereafter vide order dated 03.12.2015, it was communicated to the petitioner that the A.D.C. report has been sent to respondent no.3 and not available with local office. As the copy of the A.D.C. report was not supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, filed a contempt petition i.e. Conc. No.232/2016 before this court. After filing this contempt petition, respondents asked the petitioner to appear before another A.D.C. on 21.03.2016. On 21.03.2016, respondent no.3 wrote respondent no.4 to inform the petitioner that his date of birth will remain 22.10.1956. This Court vide order dated 05.04.2015 in said contempt petition directed the respondents to supply the copy of the A.D.C. report to the petitioner within 15 days. Accordingly, the copy of the A.D.C. report was supplied to the petitioner on 26.04.2016 and consequently, the contempt petition was disposed off on 29.04.2016. Being aggrieved by the report submitted by the A.D.C., the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the report of the A.D.C. by which the committee has directed to record his date of birth as 22.10.1956 is illegal and arbitrary. He submits that the Joint Committee for Coal Industry Coal India Limited has issued implementation instructions no.76 vide letter dated 25.04.1988 with subject title procedure for determination/verification of the age of the employee and for resolution of disputed cases of service record (hereinafter referred to as 'the Policy'). The Para(B) of the said policy provides for Review/Determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees. Sub Para (i)(a) of Para (B) says that the date of birth recorded in Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary certificates issued by the recognized Universities of Board or Middle Pass Certificate issued by the Board should be treated as corrected provided they were issued prior to the date of employment. He submits that in the present case, the A.D.C. was constituted as per order of this Court passed in W.P. No.13225/2009 and Committee has considered the documents i.e. service record, employment exchange as well as school transfer certificate and in all these documents, the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 24.05.1962. Once the committee has given the findings that the date of birth of the petitioner is 24.05.1962 then the respondents have no power to review the said report. He further submits that as per the policy, the report submitted by the A.D.C. is final. He further submits that by the impugned order, the committee has directed the petitioner to appear before the A.D.C. again. He further submits that once he appeared before the A.D.C. and A.D.C. has given his report on the basis of the documents produced before him then the respondents cannot again asked him to appear before the A.D.C. It is the observation made by the committee that the earlier A.D.C. has not assessed the age of Shri Yusuf on the basis of the medical facts and only relied on the documents presented by Shri Yusuf is not correct. He further submits that this Court while disposing of the earlier writ petition has directed the authority to decide the matter by taking all facts and circumstances into consideration. He submits that in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner has produced all the documents before the committee in which his date of birth is recorded as 24.05.1962 and on the basis of these documents, the committee has given a report that the date of birth of the petitioner is 24.05.1962. That once the committee has given his finding then there is no power of review under the instructions no.I.I-76. He further relied on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Others Vs. Chhota Birsa Uranw, 2014 AIR(SC) 1975.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.