Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents for making necessary corrections in all the relevant records especially NEIS as maintained by respondents wherein the date of birth of the petitioner has been wrongly entered as 18.03.1958 instead of 03.03.1961 as per the matriculation certificate and further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondent to act as per the policy/guidelines and practice of settlement entered into for resolving the dispute in terms of Implementation Instruction No.76.
(2.) The factual matrix as has been depicted in the writ application, in a nutshell is that as per the matriculation certificate date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 03.03.1961 and the petitioner passed matriculation in the year 1981 as per Annexure-1 to the writ application and on the basis of the said certificate the petitioner got employment in the BCCL at Dhanbad in the year 1982 as Minor Loader at Amlabad Project and now the petitioner is serving as Electric Helper. Though, the petitioner at the time of his services submitted the matriculation certificate before the authorities but the same was not taken into consideration. The petitioner raised his objection by filing representations regarding the wrong entry made in the service records as would be evident from the representations dated 14.04.2003 vide Annexure-2 to the writ application. It has been averred in the writ application that the matriculation certificate is the most authentic document for determination of date of birth of any person including the petitioner and as per the Implementation Instruction No.76 which envisages with the procedure for determination/verification of the age of employees in specific Clause B-i(a) i.e. "In the case of the existing employees matriculation certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the recognized universities or Board or Middle Pass Certificate issued by the Board of Education and/or Department of Public Instruction and admit card issued by the aforesaid bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said universities/boards/institutions prior to the date of employment" the copy of which is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ application. Inspite of the relevant provisions since the authorities did not pay any heed for correction of the date of birth of the petitioner, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for redressal of his grievances.
(3.) During course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the contention raised in the writ application has strenuously urged that the action/inaction on the part of the respondents in not considering the matriculation certificate of the petitioner for determination of the date of birth is in the teeth of Implementation of Instruction No.76 which deals with procedure for determination/verification of age of employees in specific Clause B-i (a). Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the respondent authorities are duty bound to ascertain the genuineness of the matriculation certificate since the petitioner passed the matriculation prior to entering into the services. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to decision, reported in W.P.(S) No.5022 of 2009 in the case of Nirmal Kumar Singh v. The Bharat Coking Coal Limited, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Dhanbad & others, 2015 1 JLJR 639 which has been affirmed in L.P.A. No.67 of 2015 including payment of salary. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to W.P.(S) No.454 of 2015 in the case of Sukullah Mian alias Sukrullah Mian v. The Bharat Coking Coal Limited, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Dhanbad & others. Learned counsel for the petitioner further referred to decision, in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited & others v. Chhota Birsa Uranw, 2014 12 SCC 570 : (AIR 2014 SC 1975) and also referred to decision as, reported in (Kamta Pandey v. B.C.C.L. through Chairman-cum-Managing Director, 2007 3 JCR 681 : (2008 (2) AIR Jhar R 94 (FB)).;