- (1.) The dismissal of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has resulted in the filing of this special appeal. By his writ petition, the appellant sought to question the legality of a communication dated 11 February 2011 issued to him by the competent authority in the National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (N.T.P.C.), informing him that he would attain the age of superannuation on 30 June, 2011. The appellant also sought a mandamus compelling the respondents not to retire him until 31 March, 2015 when, according to the appellant, he would attain the age of superannuation. The date of birth of the appellant in the service records of the first respondent was mentioned as 1 July, 1951. According to the appellant, his correct date of birth was 6 March, 1955. The appellant joined the service on 15 July, 1982 as an Operator (Technical). The appellant was initially informed on 23 February, 2009 that according to the service record, he would attain the age of 58 years on 1 July, 2009 and was entitled to the benefit of Employees Pension Scheme (P.P.S.) contributions. The appellant submitted a representation stating that his date of birth was 6 March, 1955. A communication was issued to him on 11 February, 2011 informing him of his impending retirement on 30 June, 2011, which led to the filing of a writ petition Writ A No. 17823 of 2011. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition by the impugned judgment and order dated 21 April, 2014.
(2.) The relevant service rules viz. National Thermal Power Corporation Service Rules contain the following provisions in Clause 7.1.2: "7.1.2(i) Every employee must declare, on his first appointment, his date of birth according to the Christian Era, and produce confirmatory evidence like Matriculation or School Leaving Certificate evidence as may be acceptable to the management. (ii) An employee is unable to produce, for reasons beyond his control, documentary evidence of his age, he shall state his age and make a written affidavit sworn before a Magistrate/Oath-Commissioner making a declaration (services of an employee giving a deliberately false affidavit are liable to be terminated) that the age as stated by him is correct. Where an employee is unable to state his exact date of birth, he can state approximately the year or year and the month in which case the 1st of July in the former case and 1st of the month in the latter case will be treated as the date of birth. (iii) In all cases referred to in Clause (ii) above, the age of an employee as stated in the affidavit will be accepted and entered in the records of the Corporation subject to the condition that the said age is certified as correct to the best of his judgment by the Medical Officer authorized by the Corporation for the purpose. The opinion of the Authorized Medical Officer, who may subject the employee to any medical test as he deems fit, shall be binding on the employee in this regard. (iv) The date of birth record with the Corporation at the time of his appointment shall not be altered except in cases of clerical error or on production of conclusive documentary evidence as stipulated herein alongwith reasons for non-production of such evidence earlier."
(3.) In the present case, it is not in dispute that when the appellant joined service, he had not produced any documentary evidence in support of his proof of age. The entry in the service record was on the basis of a medical examination and a medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer on 5 July, 1982. A copy of the medical certificate was annexed as Annexure CA-2 to the counter filed before the learned Single Judge and it bears the signature of the appellant. Significantly, in the memo of the appeal which has been filed in the special appeal, the document has been reproduced as a photocopy with the blanking out of the signature of the appellant. This is a willful attempt to mislead the Court. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has, however, placed on record a copy of the counter filed before the learned Single Judge which bears clearly the signature of the appellant on the medical certificate at Annexure CA-2. Be that as it may, it is evident from the Service Rules that where an employee is unable to produce documentary evidence of his age, he is required to make a written affidavit sworn before the Magistrate/Oath Commissioner making a declaration of his age. In such an event, the declaration of the employee is subject to a certification by the Medical Officer to the best of his judgment.;