BALRAM SINGH Vs. M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. AND ORS.
LAWS(JHAR)-2014-3-138
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on March 05,2014

BALRAM SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner joined as Junior Steno in Kuya Colliery under respondent-BCCL on 31.01.1973. According to him, at the time of entry in service, his date of birth was recorded as 13.7.1956 in Form B register, service excerpts, CMPF declaration form and Identity Card, which are enclosed in Annexure 3 series. However, the petitioner came to know later on that in a computer chart prepared by the respondents, against his name the date of birth has wrongly been shown as 10th May,1947. He, therefore, approached this Court in WP(S) No.3441/2001 which was disposed of on 1st August,2001 with observation that though the Court was not inclined to interfere with the chart impugned but if the respondents act on such unauthenticated chart, the petitioner may raise grievance before the competent authority/court of law. The petitioner, however, preferred another writ petition being WP(S) No.5959/2006 once again alleging that his date of birth has wrongly been fed in data system and respondents are not rectifying the same despite representation made on his behalf. The said writ petition was also disposed of by an order dated 5.12.2006 directing the Company to examine and consider the representation of the petitioner within a stipulated period and if the claim of the petitioner is found genuine, he shall be given the benefit of age, however, if the claim is to be rejected, it should be by a reasoned order. The said representation has been rejected vide Annexure 6 dated 15/16th 01.2007, which is also under challenge in the present writ petition.
(3.) The petitioner is also aggrieved by his premature retirement treating his date of birth as 10.5.1947. He has prayed for the consequential benefits upon setting aside the impugned order, since according to him, he ought to have continued in service till 2016 on the basis of his date of birth recorded at the time of entry in service. The petitioner has submitted that the respondents' documents are computerized chart, which shows the incorrect date of birth of the petitioner, Annexure A to the counter affidavit. Identity card register again shows incorrect date of birth of the petitioner. It is submitted that the original documents at the time of entry in service have not been relied upon by the respondents. It is admitted by the petitioner that he is not a matriculate.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.