- (1.) The petitioner had initially preferred this writ petition for making necessary correction in his date of birth, which has been wrongly mentioned as 2.1.1952 in place of 2.1.1954. During pendency of the writ petition, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 8.8.2011 for his superannuation w.e.f. 31.1.2012, as such he had preferred an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 2501/2011 for challenging the notice dated 8.8.2011, which had been allowed vide order dated 7.11.2012. The brief facts of the case, as has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner had been appointed on 17.10.1971 under the respondents-BCCL. He had obtained Matriculation certificate in the year 1969. He had got employment on the basis of the Matriculation certificate. In the Matriculation certificate, his date of birth has been mentioned as 2.1.1954. Subsequently, he came to know that there is some discrepancy in his date of birth and in place of 2.1.1954, it has been mentioned as 2.1.1952. He had made representation on 29.11.1995 before the competent authority to make necessary correction in his date of birth, which had been duly received. When no action was taken on the said representation, he again made another representation on 17.12.1998, but his date of birth had not been rectified. He has annexed documents such as: identification certificate report dated 8.8.2006, service particulars dated 5.9.2006, last pay certificate issued on 28.8.2002, wherein his date of birth has been mentioned as 2.1.1954. He has also relied upon Implementation Instruction No. 76, which is an outcome of a Bilateral Agreement, wherein it has been agreed upon that in case of the appointees, who have passed Matriculation or equivalent examination, the date of birth recorded in the said certificate, shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances. When the grievance of the petitioner was not redressed, he preferred instant writ petition. During pendency of the writ petition, a notice had been issued to the petitioner on 8.8.2011 stating therein that since he is going to complete 60 years of age on 31.1.2012, he will superannuate w.e.f. 31.1.2012 on the basis of his date of birth i.e. 2.1.1952. The said notice had been challenged by the petitioner by way of an interlocutory application. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in Kamta Pandey v. M/s. B.C.C.L, 2007 3 JLJR 726 and a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. v. Chhota Birsa Uranw, 2014 3 JLJR 182.
(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have contended by filing counter affidavit that actual date of birth of the petitioner is 2.1.1952. In support of their contentions, the respondents have relied on Annexure-A, which is Form-B Register, wherein the date of appointment of the petitioner has been mentioned as 17.10.1971 and the age of the petitioner has been mentioned as 28 years. The respondents have also relied upon the service excerpts of the petitioner, wherein his date of birth has been mentioned as 2.1.1952. They have contended that the date of birth mentioned in Form-B Register will prevail over the Matriculation certificate. Since in the Form-B Register, the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 2.1.1952, he has rightly retired w.e.f. 31.1.2012. They have further contended that if the petitioner's age as per the Matriculation certificate i.e. 2.1.1954 will be taken to be correct, he had not attained required minimum age of 18 years at the time of appointment. Hence, he could not have been appointed. Learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Ram Pyare Singh v. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors., 2014 3 JCR 679.
(3.) Heard the parties, perused the record.;