R.R. Prasad, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner joined the service in the Respondents -company on 6.5.1971 and was working as Provident Fund Clerk. At the time of joining, his date of birth was recorded as 1.7.1944 in Form -B Register, which was acknowledged by the Petitioner by putting signature over it. In the year 1987, form containing service excerpt was issued to all the workmen so that necessary information's, which had earlier not been given, be furnished.
(2.) ACCORDING to the case of the Petitioner, date of birth was recorded in the service except as 1.8.1949 on the basis of a certificate. Therefore, the Petitioner was under belief that he on attaining the age of 60 years would be retiring on 30.8.2009, but a notice was given to him in the year 2003 intimating therein that he is going to retire on 30.6.2004 on the date on which he would be attaining the age of 60 years. Immediately thereafter, the Petitioner made a representation before the Authority requesting therein to correct the date of birth, as he could come to know that his date of birth has been put in as 1.7.1944 in the service excerpt. On such representation, the Petitioner was asked to submit relevant documents in this regard but without taking any final decision, the Petitioner was made to retire on 30.6.2004. After the Petitioner got retired, the Respondent issued a letter on 15.12.2005 (Annexure -4) asking the Petitioner to move to the civil court for redressal of his grievances. Being aggrieved with that, the Petitioner has moved to this Court.
(3.) MR . Kalyan Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submits that as per Instruction No. 76(A) of N.C.W.A. -III, age of the employee is to be recorded as per the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate, but the Authority by giving complete go -bye to the said Instruction made the Petitioner to retire prematurely, which is not only against the said instruction but is also under the teeth of a judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kamta Pandey v. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others, 2007 (3) JLJR 726 holding therein that the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate would prevail over any other document showing age of the Petitioner. Therefore, the order, as contained in Annexure -3, under which the Petitioner was made to retire on 30.6.2004, is fit to be quashed and, thereby, the Petitioner would be entitled to the consequential benefits.;