- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The appellant -petitioner has challenged the superannuation notice dated 10.10.2008 containing the fact that petitioner is reaching the age of superannuation i.e., 60 years, on 31st January, 2009, and, therefore, he will be retiring on 31st January, 2009. The learned Single Judge considered the detailed evidence wherein the writ petitioner himself admitted his particular date of birth which justified his superannuation on 31st January, 2009. Therefore, the petitioner -appellant, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17.07.2012, has preferred this appeal.
(2.) ACCORDING to learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant's correct date of birth is recorded in the service book, which is required and accepted in view of the Standing Order contained in condition 37.0 (v), which clearly provides that the date of birth of a workman, once entered in the service card of the establishment shall be the sole evidence of his age in relation to all matters pertaining to his service including fixation of the date of his retirement from the service of the establishment. It is also submitted that it is clearly mentioned in the said clause that all formalities regarding recording of date of birth shall be finalized within three months of the appointment of a workman. Therefore, after such inordinate delay, the respondent could not have proceeded to declare the date of birth of the petitioner different than that recorded in the service book. It is also submitted that entry of the date of birth of the petitioner in Form 'B' is irrelevant as has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kamta Pandey Vrs. M/s B.C.C.L., Dhanbad and Ors. reported in : 2007(3) JLJR 726.
(3.) WE considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the facts of the case as well as the detailed reasons given by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment in sub -para - (a) to (j) of para -5. We are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has considered the evidence in favour of the writ petitioner as well as the evidence which goes against the writ petitioner. Clause 37.0(v) of the Standing Order is as under: 37.0 Record of Age: v) The date of birth of a workman, once entered in the service card of the establishment shall be the sole evidence of his age in relation to all matters pertaining to his service including fixation of the date of his retirement from the service of the establishment All formalities regarding recording of date of birth shall be finalized within three months of the appointment of a workman. Prima -facie, above clause indicates that the date of birth of a workman once entered in the service book shall be the sole evidence of age in relation to all matters including fixation of the date of retirement of the workman but it cannot mean that this shall be a conclusive proof. The said contention will make impossible for any employee or even for employer to get the date of birth corrected in the service record of the employee even when the mistake is apparent and is an admitted mistake or can be rebutted by cogent trustworthy evidence. The completion of formalities regarding recording date of birth is also a duty for the employer that they should do so within three months from the date of appointment of a workman but all these things are subject to correction provided there are trustworthy evidence. It cannot be held that date of birth recorded in the service record shall be the sole criteria or only evidence in a case where that evidence is admitted to be wrong even by the employee and found wrong by the employer and in that case also, wrongly recorded date of birth will be the sole evidence. It may be observed that what is the value of the evidence in dispute of date of birth in recorded in services record is dependent upon the evidence and trustworthy evidence cannot. be discarded merely on the basis of some evidence which is not trustworthy evidence. A trustworthy evidence is required to be preferred over the absolutely unreliable and untrustworthy evidence. The proposition advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is, (sic) accepted, it will lead to only injustice as the date of birth recorded (sic) service book which is found to be absolutely unbelievable leading to absurdity.;