Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner entered in service on 5th October, 1986 as a Miner Loader when his age was assessed as 30 years as on 17th July, 1986. The service excerpts at Annexure -3 also indicates his educational qualification as matriculate. It also contains the list of all his family members and his own acknowledgment signed on 20th August, 1987 relating to the entries. However, his date of birth as per the matriculation certificate at Annexure -1 is 6th May, 1963. He is shown to have passed Matriculation Exam, from one R.K.R.V. High School, Mokameh held in September, 1978. Despite the matriculation certificate in his possession much before his entry in service and such matriculation entry shown in the service excerpts also petitioner accepted his age determined as 33 years on 17th July, 1986 which is the basis of his retirement in May, 2013. He has preferred this writ application only on 18th May, 2013 seeking correction in his date of birth entry based upon matriculation certificate.
(2.) Petitioner though has relied upon representations said to have been made on 3rd September, 2007 (Annexure -2) and 9th June, 2008 (Annexure -4) raising his grievances of date of birth before the respondent but receipt of both the representations are categorically denied in the counter affidavit by the respondents vide statements made at paragraph Nos. 13 and 17. Petitioner has sought to rely upon certain corrections of date of birth accorded on the basis of matriculation certificate or admit card of matriculation of one Hira Prasad Lal, HV Driver and one Ram Naresh Sharma and another person as evident from Annexure -7 Series dated 11th May, 2010, 16th December, 2008 and 15th April, 2008. According to the petitioner, in view of the provisions contained in Implementation Instruction -76 specifically relating to review of date of birth entry of existing employees, petitioner's date of birth entry should have been also corrected after due verification of his matriculation certificate as it was obtained prior to his entry in service. Learned counsel has also relied upon a judgment of Full Bench rendered in the case of Kamta Pandey vs. M/s. B.C.C.L. reported in : 2007 (3) JCR 681 (Jhr.) [: 2007 (3) JLJR 726] (FB) in support of his submission.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and stated that the instant issue raises disputed question of fact which are fit for industrial adjudication. Petitioner's date of birth has been recorded at the time of entry in service which he has duly acknowledged by recording his signature. He has been superannuated on the basis of age recorded in the Statutory Form -B Register. Petitioner's age was assessed by the Medical Board on 17th July, 1986 as 33 years and the assessment of age report at Annexure -A by the Medical Board also contains his left thumb impression. Respondents have refuted receipt of any such representation and stated that the dispute about the date of birth is raised on the verge of retirement which need not be interfered with. It is also stated that in the documents where the petitioner's age is recorded as 33 years, other entries of the petitioner have been also recorded which have been duly acknowledged by him. He had never produced matriculation certificate prior to his appointment.;