Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) THE appellant herein is aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 30.06.2011 passed in W. P. (S) No. 2208 of 2010 whereby and whereunder respondents/appellants herein have been directed to correct the petitioner's date of birth wrongly recorded in the Form -B register and other relevant records, according to the date of birth recorded in his Matriculation Certificate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner/respondent herein had approached this Court through the instant writ petition for a direction to the respondents to correct his date of birth in all relevant service records as per the Matriculation certificate. The writ petitioner had pleaded that as per the Matriculation certificate his date of birth was mentioned as 03.11.1955 and he entered into the services of the respondents/appellants herein on the post of Clerk on 18.09.1973. The case of the writ petitioner is that in the year 1987, the respondents/appellants had prepared service excerpts of the petitioner giving his personal details including his Educational Qualifications as Matric. However, in the column of the date of birth his age was mentioned as 23 years as on 1974 which was not in accordance with date of birth as mentioned in his matriculation certificate. It is, also, stated that the record of Coal Mines Provident Fund also showed that the petitioner's date of birth is mentioned as '1955' i.e. in accordance with Matriculation certificate. However, instead of correcting his date of birth on the basis of his Matriculation certificate on 03.11.1955, no step was taken on the part of the respondents/Appellants, which has constrained the petitioner to approach this Court by way of the instant writ petition (W.P.S No. 2208 of 2010).
(2.) IT is urged by the respondents/appellants herein that learned Single Judge has committed serious error in directing the appellants to correct the petitioner's date of birth in the relevant records primarily on the ground : (i) that the petitioner has raised the dispute at the fag end of service in the year 2010 although he was appointed in 1973 when it was disclosed by him that his age was 23 years in the year 1974 (ii) that even in the year 1986 when service excerpts were prepared, his age was confirmed as 23 years as on 1974 and as such, petitioner has estopped from raising the said dispute when he was accepted it even in the year 1986 and; (iii) It has been further urged that learned Single Judge has incorrectly applied the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Kamta Pandey Vrs. M/s BCCL & Ors. reported in, 2007(3) JLJR 726 in view of the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court (Division Bench as well as Single Bench), which is as under: - (i) Civil Paswan Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Others, reported in (2005(2)JCR 245 (Jhr.) (ii) Karu Nonia Vrs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Others, reported in, (2002(1)JCR 418 (Jhr.) (iii) Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vrs. S.M. Jadhav & Anr., reported in (2001(2)JCR CR 1(SC) 251. (iv) Daya Ram Gope Vrs. Central Coalfields Ltd. & Others, reported in (2002 (3) JCR 339 (Jhr.) (v) Management of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. Ranchi Vrs. Mrs. Sarita Narayan & Others, reported in ( : 2003 (4) JCR 602 (Jhr.). On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the respondents/appellants hereinabove submitted that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law and is fit to be set aside.
(3.) WE have heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the facts of the case including the judgments referred on behalf of the appellants. It appears that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1973 and in the service excerpts given to the petitioner Educational Qualification was mentioned as Matric. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on the basis of his Matriculation Certificate. It is also not disputed by the appellants that in the Coal Mines Provident Fund declaration the date of birth of the petitioner/respondent herein is mentioned as 1955. In his Matriculation certificate, his date of birth is 3rd November, 1955. The record maintained in the Coal Mines Provident Fund Office is based on the details furnished by the Employer. The learned Single Judge has taken into account that the old Form -B register containing initial place of posting of the petitioner is not available at the Colliery of R. K. Unit, Dahibari Colliery, instead a Xerox -copy of new Form -B register relating to the petitioner was produced alongwith counter affidavit filed by the respondents/appellants herein, which was prepared in the year 1986. Even in the said Form -B register, the learned Single Judge has found that the date of birth was originally mentioned as 30 years as on 1974 and that was penned through without any signature of the authority and just below the column of date of birth is recorded 23 years as on 1974 as per the LPC No. 23 of 03.02.1986 of Dahibari Colliery. The Form -B register, which was produced before the learned Single Judge was found to be a new one, which was prepared in 1986 with cutting in the date of birth entry without signature and showing the date of birth on the basis of LPC of Dahibari Colliery dated 03.02.1986 referred hereinabove. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, come to a conclusion that the said documents lacks sanctity of an authentic record. On the other hand, the Implementation Instruction No. 76 of National Coal Wage Agreement -III provides for determination of age at the time of appointment. The same has been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge as well wherein the date of birth in Matriculation Certificate has to be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstance.;