Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondent Eastern Coalfields Limited. The petitioner had come before this Court for directing the respondents to constitute a Medical Board for determination of the age of the petitioner as several representations for correction of his date of birth had remained unheeded. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as mazdoor in Shyampur Colliery belonging to the respondent No. 1 on 31st January, 1973. Thereafter, he was transferred to Hariajam Colliery, It is contention of the petitioner that his age was recorded as 24 years at the time of entering in service that amounts to his date of birth being 31st January, 1949. However, the petitioner came to know that the respondents behind his back. have changed his date of birth as 31st January, 1943 as per the service excerpts contained at Annexure -1 to the writ application. The petitioner thereafter made several representations for correction of his date of birth, but the same were not heeded to. In such circumstances, the petitioner moved this Court for a direction upon the respondents to constitute the Medical Board to ascertain the actual date of birth of the employee concerned. However, it appears that after filing of this writ application in the year 2002, the petitioner has superannuated in January, 2003 itself treating his date of birth as 31st January, 1943.
(2.) COUNSEL for the respondent ECL, on the basis of the averments made in the counter -affidavit, submits that old Form -B Register maintained by Pure Hariajam Colliery under Coal Mines Authority Limited which bears the signature of the petitioner, shows that he was literate person and his age was recorded as 30 years as on 31st January 1973 (Annexure -A to the counter -affidavit) as per which his date of birth was 31st January, 1943. It is further submitted that after creation of the Coal India Limited and its subsidiary like the present respondent ECL, new Form -B register was prepared in August, 1975 for the concerned colliery under the respondent under Rule 48(3) in which, date of birth of the petitioner was recorded at serial No. 786 as 31st January, 1943. However, it is submitted that the petitioner did not appear for verification of his service records and therefore, it is incomplete in the absence of his signature and photograph and counter signature of the officer of the employer. It is further submitted that in the year 1987, Service Excerpts (Form -A) were again prepared in which date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 31st January, 1943 and on which the petitioner himself put his signature without raising any objection. On that basis, identity card was also issued in the year 1987. Counsel for the respondent therefore submits that for all these years, the petitioner never raised any grievance and waited till 2003 to raise the dispute at the fag end of his service career which cannot be accepted on the ground of delay and laches alone. It is further submitted that since the recording of date of birth in the relevant Form -A (Service Excerpts) bears the correct date of birth, there is no necessity to constitute the Apex Medical Board for re -determination of the age of the petitioner and as such, relief as prayed by the petitioner, cannot be granted. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials. From the relevant documents brought on record, it appears that the petitioner's date of birth was entered as 31st January, 1943 in the relevant Form -B Register prepared in the year 1975 and once again in the year 1987, Service Excerpts were prepared in which the petitioner himself put his signature wherein his date of birth has been shown as 31st January, 1943. The petitioner has not controverted this fact by way of any rejoinder. Moreover, the petitioner has moved this Court in the year 2002 almost at the fag end of his service career for such a relief. In view of the settled position of law as declared by judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that any claim of re -determination of age should not be entertained at the fag end of service, the claim of the petitioner, appears to be grossly barred by delay and laches. In view of the aforesaid discussions and reasons, this writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.;