SOUTH ESTERN COALFIELDS LTD Vs. NIJAMUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this intra- court appeal preferred under Section 2 (1) of the m. P. Uchcha Nayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, the legal sustainability of the order dated 12. 8. 2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 17742/2006 has been called in question.

(2.) SANS unnecessary details, the facts which are necessitous to be unfurled are that the respondent was appointed on 6. 7. 1974 and at the time of entering into service his age was recorded as 29 years in his service register. In the year 2003, on the basis of the mark-sheet of the High School Examination certificate and other documents brought on record, the present appellants undertook an exercise of verification of the date of birth of the writ petitioner. The respondent produced the mark-sheet and other documents from the Board of Secondary education and the same were got verified by the authorities from the Board which were found to be genuine. Because of the aforesaid situation, the matter was referred to the Age Determination Committee which, by its decision dated 22. 6. 2005 and 27. 6. 2005, assessed the age of the respondent as 57 and half years as on 22. 6. 2005 by its communication dated 28. 6. 2005. Eventually, the respondent was superannuated w. e. f. 31. 12. 2007 by order dated 31. 8. 2007. The said order was assailed before the learned single Judge on the foundation that there had been erroneous determination of the age on the basis of the entry in the Form-B Register despite the fact that authoritative and sanguine documents were available as per the Implementation Instruction No. 76. It was urged that it was incumbent on the part of the Age Determination Committee to have determined the age on the basis of the said documents but, as it is vivid, the age has been arbitrarily assessed the age to be 57 years and half as on 22. 6. 2005.

(3.) THE stand and stance of the respondent were combatted by the present appellant contending that in Form B register there was a declaration by the employee that he was 29 years of age in the year 1974 and, therefore, the contention that the date of birth should be recorded as 23. 11. 1953 was absolutely misconceived. That apart, it was resisted on the ground that the respondent sought correction of his date of birth at the fag end of his service career and in view of the decision rendered in Coal India Ltd. and another v. Ardhendu Bikas Bhattacharjee and others, (2005) 12 SCC 201, it was impermissible.