KEDAR SINGH Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD
LAWS(JHAR)-2005-10-31
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on October 19,2005

KEDAR SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
Central Coalfields Ltd.And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is challenging the order as contained in the Office Memo dated 29.3.2005 issued by the authority of the respondent -Central Coalfields Limited, whereby petitioner was informed that he shall be superannuated on 31.10.2005 on the basis of his date of birth entered in the service record i.e. 7.10.1945.
(2.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as Constable in Bengal Engineering Group, a unit of Indian Army. His date of birth alleged to have been recorded as 7.10.1947. On completion of 15 years, the petitioner was retired. It is alleged that in the discharge report/certificate, his date of birth was wrongly recorded as 7.10.1945 instead of 7.10.1947. In the year 1982, the petitioner was again appointed as Security Guard against the quota of Ex -Army -men in the respondent C.C.L. wherein his date of birth was recorded as 7.10.1945. The petitioner applied for necessary correction, but no communication was made to him about the correction made in the service book or not. However, all of a sudden, the impugned letter of superannuation was issued. The respondent -C.C.L. in their counter affidavit have categorically stated that the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as in the Company 'srecords as 7.10.1945 and as a token of acceptance, the petitioner put his thumb impression and signatures in the said record. It is stated that in 'B ' form also, the petitioner 'sdate of birth was recorded as 7.10.1945 and as a token of acceptance the petitioner put his thumb impression and signature. In the year 1987, the petitioner was served with a copy of service excerpts wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 7.10.1945, but the petitioner did not raise any objection to his date of birth. It is only after receiving the letter of superannuation the petitioner has made out a case that his date of birth was incorrectly recorded in the service record.
(3.) I have heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.;


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