M.KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, J. - (1.) RAMANAND Tiwary, the petitioner -appellant, an employee under Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd., the respondent herein, was informed through letter No. 260 dated 20.12.2005 that he would retire with effect from 31.1.2006 on attaining the age of 60 years. Challenging this letter, the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking for quashing the said letter and for granting a direction to the respondents to treat his date of birth to be 31.12.1950 as contained in his Matriculation Certificate and to permit him to continue in service. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the order dated 23.8.2006 holding that as the date of his superannuation fixed by the authorities to be on 31.1.2006 was in accordance with the declaration of the petitioner of his age as 25 years in the Statutory B Form, the impugned letter was justified. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Single Judge, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed.
(2.) THE relevant facts for disposal of this appeal are as follows: The petitioner -appellant was appointed as a General Mazdoor in the company of the respondents on 20.2.1970. After 10 years, on the basis of his Matriculation Certificate containing his date of birth as 31.12.1950, he was promoted to the post of Attendant Clerk on 23.5.1980. Though the appellant submitted his Matriculation Certificate and other Certificates containing his date of birth to be 31.12.1950, the respondents asked him to appear before the Medical Board. Accordingly, he was subjected to the medical test. The Medical Board, on 29.9.1989, on physical assessment of the appellant, found him to be 40 years of age. As per the report of the Medical Board, his date of birth was 29.9.1949. On 11.3.2004, the appellant was asked by the respondents to appear before the Selection Committee for suitability for promotion to the post of Senior Despatch Clerk/Typist and Senior Store Keeper. At that time also, he produced all the records with reference to educational and technical certificates containing his date of birth as 31.12.1950. Suddenly on 20.12.2005, the appellant was served the impugned letter intimating that he would be going to retire and superannuate from the service with effect from 31.1.2006. Immediately after receipt of the impugned letter, the appellant, on 23.12.2005, made representation before the respondent authorities stating that as his date of birth was 31.12.1950 as per the Matriculation Certificate and School Leaving Certificate and since he would attain the age of 60 years only on 31.12.2010, he could not be superannuated with effect from 31.1.2006. This representation was not considered by the respondent authorities. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 seeking for quashing of the aforesaid letter and for consequential direction. The learned Single Judge, mainly on the ground that the date of superannuation of the petitioner was correctly fixed by the respondent authorities on the basis of the Form B Register containing his age as 25 years at the time of appointment, dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal. According to the counsel for the appellant, the Matriculation Certificate containing the correct date of birth as 31.12.1950 was produced by the petitioner -appellant even in the year 1980 and only on that basis, promotion was given and even on the date of appointment, i.e. on 20.2.1970, he furnished his date of birth only as 31.12.1950 and according to Instruction No. 76 of National Coal Wage Agreement - III (hereinafter as N.C.W.A - III), the Matriculation Certificate showing the date of birth is admissible and has got more evidentiary value than the other documents and as such, Instruction No. 76 is binding upon the respondents and applicable to the appellant as such. Therefore, the date of birth as fixed by the respondent authorities is wrong.
(3.) ARGUING contra, counsel for the respondents would submit that as decided by the learned Single Judge that in the Form B Register the petitioner himself made self -declaration that he was aged about 25 years at the time of joining in the year 1970 and therefore, the date of birth as claimed by the petitioner -appellant cannot be correct.;