GOPAL PRASAD SINGH Vs. BCCL, DHANBAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the Petitioner has prayed for a direction on the Respondents to correct his date of birth in all the relevant service records as per the Matriculation Certificate.

(2.) According to the Petitioner, he passed matriculation examination in the year 1971. In the Matriculation Certificate, his date of birth was mentioned as 03.11.1955. After matriculation, he entered into the services of the Respondents and appointed on the post of Clerk on 18.09.1973. In the year 1987, the Respondents had prepared service excerpts of the Petitioner giving his personal details, including his educational qualification as matric. However, in the column of date of birth, his age was mentioned as 23 years as on 1974, which was not in accordance with the date of birth mentioned in his Matriculation Certificate. The Petitioner pointed out the said mistake in the column of date of birth and requested for correction of the same. It has been further stated that in the record of Coal Mines Provident Fund (CMPF for short), Petitioner's date of birth has been mentioned as '1955', which is in accordance with the matriculation certificate. But the concerned authority of Dahibari Colliery did not correct the Petitioner's date of birth in the service excerpts and other records at that time. They started process of correcting his date of birth in the month of July,2009 on a fresh representation of the Petitioner dated 1.7.2009. The said authority prepared the details of personal particulars of the Petitioner mentioning his date of birth as 03.11.1955 and appointment made on the basis of Matriculation Certificate. The same was forwarded to the Area Officer by letter being Reference No. PO: NLOCP-DBOCP: NS: 09:316 dated 12/18.09.2009. But inspite of the same, no action was taken for correcting the Petitioner's date of birth.

(3.) Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submitted that Implementation Instruction No. 76 of National Coal Wage Agreement-III provides procedure for determination/verification of age of employees. It has been clearly mentioned that for determination of age in the case of the appointee, who has passed matriculation or equivalent examination, the date of birth recorded in the said certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth .2. and the same will not be altered under any circumstance. The Petitioner had passed matriculation examination before his entry in the service in the year 1971 and his service records show that his appointment was on the basis of Matriculation Certificate. He further submitted that the Full Bench of this Court while deciding the case of 'Kamta Pandey v. BCCL and Ors., 2007 3 JLJR 726, has held that the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate is a conclusive proof of age and no other records-as both the parties are bound by Implementation Instruction No. 76 of National Coal Wage Agreement, which is bilateral agreement between the Company and the Unions. The Respondents are bound by the said provision of Implementation Instruction No. 76 and the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kamta pandey v. BCCL and Ors. (supra). A direction is, thus, required to be issued to the Respondents to make necessary correction in the service records on the basis of the entry of date of birth in the Matriculation Certificate of the Petitioner.