- (1.) HEARD the parties for final disposal.
(2.) THIS writ petition involves the dispute with regard to the date of birth. According to the petitioner, his date of birth is 27.1.1946 and according to the respondents, his date of birth is 1.7.1941. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that from the Sirdar's Certificate, the School Transfer Certificate and the Medical Examination Report, it will appear that petitioner's date of birth is 27.1.1946. It is further submitted that the Senior Personnel Officer/Personnel Officer, on the basis of the Sirdar's Certificate, corrected the date of birth on 30.9.1988 in the service excerpts issued on 5.5.1987 and on this basis, the Senior Personnel Officer of the Colliery issued a letter dated 7/9.5.2001 (Annexure -3) seeking guidelines, saying that the said correction of the date of birth made in the service excerpts was not communicated, which has resulted the issuance of superannuation notice. In these circumstances, it is submitted that petitioner has been wrongly retired on 30.6.2001 i.e. about 5 years earlier to his actual date of superannuation. Petitioner also relied on the unreported judgment dated 3.5.2005 passed in W.P.(S) No. 599 of 2005 in the case of Lakhan Nonia No. 1 vs. BCCL.
(3.) COUNSEL for the respondents submitted that petitioner declared his date of birth as 1.7.1941 when he joined the services on 1.7.1969 and accordingly the same was recorded in the Statutory Form -B Register. Petitioner did not raise any dispute with regard to the said entry and did not take steps for it's correction, if it was wrong. He raised this dispute with regard to his date of birth at the fag end of his service, which is not permissible in view of the judgments reported in (1994)6 SCC 302 State of Tamil Nadu vs. T.V. Venugopalan and (2001)4 SCC 52 Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. S.M. Jadhav & Another. It was further submitted that it is not known, on what basis, petitioner got his date of birth recorded in the Mining Sirdar's Certificate, issued after about eight years of his appointment. The genuinity of the School Transfer Certificate is doubtful and it is also of 1975 i. e. much after the appointment. It is further submitted that the report of medical examination is a periodical examination report and such report is not a report of the Age Assessment Board. It is further submitted that after petitioner was superannuated, he made a representation to the Senior Personnel Officer which was forwarded to his higher officer for guidance by Annexure -3, which is wholly misconceived. There is no assessment by the Medical Board about the date of birth as mentioned in the said Annexure -3 and moreover the officer issued the said letter mainly on the basis of the said correction of the date of birth in the service excerpts. It is further submitted that the date of birth recorded in the Statutory Form -B Register was not corrected and it is not known how it could be corrected in the service excerpts only on the basis of Sirdar's Certificate. It is further submitted that the date of birth/age mentioned in the aforesaid documents are not the conclusive proof of his age and they are not binding on the management.;