- (1.) The controversy in this writ petition is over the age of superannuation of the petitioner, who was working as a pump operator with the respondent No. 2, Eastern Coalfields Limited (the employer). His complaint is against his superannuation in the year 2007, which, according to him, was effected much before his reaching the age of superannuation. Case of the employer, however, is that he had attained the superannuation age of 60 years on 19th February, 2005, but he was permitted to continue with his duties as there were certain discrepancies in respect of his date of birth in the official records. By a communication dated 8/9th June, 2007, the petitioner was informed that the recordal of his date of birth as 40 years as on 19th February, 1985, ought to stand as final. This communication in reality contains the decision of the company, but the letter was issued by the Agent, Kottadih Project of the employer, where the petitioner was engaged. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that his date of birth is 21st March, 1963, and on that basis he still has 10 more years of service left. It is contended that he was struck off from the rolls illegally with effect from 1st July, 2005. In support of his case, he has referred to his identity card issued by the company, where his date of birth is recorded as 21st March, 1963. His further submission is that his actual age was determined by an age assessment committee on 19th May, 1987. According to him, this assessment was made when a similar exercise was undertaken in respect of other employees of the company as well, and such age assessment committee had confirmed his date of birth to be 24 years as on 21st March, 1987. Photocopy of a memorandum bearing No. AGT/KH/SPO/MB/87/1987 purported to have been signed by the Agent of kottadih colliery on 13th August, 1987 has been made annexure P3 to the writ petition in support of this contention. This memorandum records:- Dear Sir/Madam, The Medical Board constituted for the age assessment of the employees of this colliery has assessed your age as mentioned below. The age assessed by the Medical Board is being recorded is form 'B' Register/Identity Card & other records. Please note that retirement letter will be served on attaining the age of 60 years. 4. Bhola Prasad Mali Pump Khalasi 24(Twenty four) years. This reference of letter No. 0664/11607 dt. 5/1/87 06/Personnel/dated 19.5.87 issued from Dy. C.P.M., Pand. Area.
(2.) In another document issued on 1st April, 2007, which directs payment of advance sum to him, it is recorded:- The under noted employee of Kottadih Project has been flagged off from active pay roll of System Deptt., ECL HQ. Since his date of birth in Form "B" of colliery has been recorded otherwise he has been continuing his duty as usual. His case for correction of date of birth has also been processed to Area/HQ. authority. But no bill/wages sheet has been prepared in his name for the month of Feb. 07. Concern employee has applied for payment of wages for work done during the month However, advance mentioned against him may be sanctioned subject to adjustment in final bill.
(3.) The provision relating to recordal of date of birth is contained in Section 48 of The Mines Act, 1952, which requires every mine to maintain in a prescribed form and place a register of all persons employed in the mine. Such register is to include the age and sex of the employee. The prescribed form is referred to as the "B" form, and there is a dispute in this matter in relation to the entry in the "B" form in respect of the petitioner. Stand of the respondents is that in the "B" form which appears to have been updated in the year 1987, age of the petitioner has been recorded as 40 years as on 15th February, 1985. The petitioner's case on the other hand is that he had raised objection over recordal of his age in the objection form, a copy of which has been made Annexure 'P2' of the writ petition. In this document, against the column "remarks", two entries appear to have been recorded. The first one is "Date of birth as on 19th February, 1985 is 22 years". The second entry relates to date of appointment, and the recordal is "Date of apptt. Is 15.9.1981". The employer claims to have undertaken the task of updating the service excerpts of their employees in the year 1987, and three copies containing relevant details were prepared as per this exercise. The management retained one copy whereas two copies were forwarded to the employees. As per the procedure followed at that point of time, the employee was to retain one copy thereof, while the other was returned to the management after incorporating objections/remarks. The employee was to countersign or give his thumb impression in the copy returned to the employer. Specific case made out by the employer is that in the copy of the service excerpt the petitioner's age had been recorded as 40 years as on 19th February, 1985. In their affidavit, the respondents have denied that the petitioner had raised any objection at the time of updating of service excerpts. A photocopy of the same, being the "B" form, has been made Annexure "R1" to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondents. The petitioner's date of appointment has been recorded as 15th September, 1981 in that document. No correction, however, is reflected in respect of his age. In annexure "P2" of the writ petition, which the petitioner contends carries his objection, his date of appointment was originally recorded as "5.9.81" and in the same document, date of birth is recorded as "40 yrs as on 19.2.85". The respondents, however, dispute the authenticity of this document.;