Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 17.1.2007 passed by the respondent No. 5 so far as the petitioner is concerned whereby and whereunder the date of superannuation of the petitioner has been fixed as 31.1.2007. Further a direction has been sought for to treat the date of birth of the petitioner as 12.6.1955 as recorded in the C.M.P.F. records or in the alternative to refer the petitioner before a duly constituted a Medical Board for assessment of his age. The petitioner was initially appointed on 13.7.1973 under the respondents as Wagon Loader in Dutta Colliery. Since the petitioner was an illiterate person, he could not produce his school leaving certificate and he had disclosed his date of birth as 12.5.1955 in support of which a horoscope was produced in order to make proper and correct entry in the service records of the employee. The respondents in the year 1987 -1988 had supplied the service sheet to its employees. The petitioner was also served with a service excerpt on 26.4.1987 from which the petitioner could gather that his date of birth is wrongly recorded as 2.1.1947 and the date of appointment has also been wrongly recorded as 12.9.1977. The petitioner approached the authorities for correction of his date of birth as 12.6.1955 but subsequently the petitioner could come to know that the same was never corrected when superannuation notice dated 17.1.2007 was served upon the petitioner informing the petitioner that he was to retire on 31.1.2007.
(2.) HEARD Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the respondents. Mrs. Pal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the service excerpt which has been supplied to the petitioner there was as apparent error, inasmuch as, both the appointment as well as the date of birth of the petitioner was wrongly recorded to which the petitioner had raised his grievance bringing to the notice of the authorities that the date of birth of the petitioner is 12.5.1955. It has further been submitted that the actual and correct date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 12.5.1955 in the C.M.P.F. record but in spite of the best effort of the petitioner the respondents are not producing the said record deliberately in order to deprive the petitioner of further period of service to which the petitioner is entitled to. It has also been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since there is lack of consistency in the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in various documents it would have been apt to refer the petitioner to the Apex Medical Board for assessment of his age which could then have been treated to be a conclusive proof of age. In this context learned senior counsel has referred to the report of the Joint Bipartite Committee for the Coal Industries.
(3.) MR . Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the date of birth in the statutory Form -B register is the conclusive proof of age and the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded in the said register as 1.1.1947 and on the basis of the date of birth recorded the petitioner has been superannuated from service. It has also been submitted that in the various documents which have been appended to the counter affidavit it could be deciphered that there is a consistent evidence to show that the date of birth of the petitioner is 2.1.1947. In such circumstance, therefore, it has been submitted that the petitioner has rightly been superannuated on and from 31.1.2007 and the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner for assessment of the age of the petitioner by the Apex Medical Board is to be negated.;