BHAGWAT SINGH Vs. CENTRAL COAL FIELD LIMITED

LAWS(JHAR)-2009-12-171

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND

Decided on December 08,2009

BHAGWAT SINGH Appellant

VERSUS

Central Coal Field Limited Respondents

JUDGEMENT

AMARESHWAR SAHAY,J. - (1.) By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (i) to quash the order dated 06.02.2002 ( Annexure -6 ) and order dated 08.02.2002 ( Annexur -7 ) by which the representation of the petitioner for correction of the date of birth has been rejected; (ii) for a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service till August, 2002 on the basis of the date of birth as recorded in his matriculation certificate; (iii)to quash the Annexure -2 i.e. the order dated 19.10.2000 directing the petitioner to superannuate on and from 01.11.2001; (iv) to direct the respondents to correct his date of birth as 21.08.1942 in place of 01.11.1941 on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate, and (v) to pay the salary since December, 2001 for the period he worked. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that he was initially appointed on 25.11.1959 on the post of Pump Khalasi and was posted at Piparwar Project of the C.C.L. in the District of Hazaribagh. He passed matriculation examination in the year 1959, the result of which was published in June, 1959 i.e. before his initial appointment. The grievance of the petitioner is that though his actual date of birth is 21.08.1942 as recorded in the matriculation certificate, but in the service sheet, his date of birth was wrongly recorded as 01.11.1941. In the year 1987 -88, the respondents supplied the service sheet to each employee of the C.C.L., and one of such sheet was also supplied to the petitioner, from which he came to know for the first time that his date of birth has wrongly been recorded in his service sheet as 01.11.1941. He immediately raised objection and made endorsement in the service sheet itself that the date of birth has wrongly been recorded, therefore, it should be corrected as per the matriculation certificate. A copy of said service sheet has been annexed as Annexure -1 to this writ petition. During the period the matter regarding correction of date of birth was pending, the respondents issued a notice to the petitioner dated 19.10.2000 as contained in Annexure -2 to the writ petition, informing him that he would retire from service with effect from 01.11.2001 on attaining the age of superannuation. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner made a representation to correct his date of birth on the basis of his matriculation certificate. Thereafter, on 30.10.2000, a letter as contained in Annexure -3 was issued to the petitioner asking him to submit mark -sheet issued by the Bihar School Examination Board, the admit -card etc. as well as the name of the center from which he appeared in the said matriculation examination. The petitioner submitted those details as required. Further, the case of the petitioner is that the respondents also enquired from the Bihar School Examination Board about the genuineness of the documents submitted by the petitioner, and in reply to that, by issue of a letter dated 29.09.2001, the Bihar School Examination Board, informed the Office of the Chief General Manager, C.C.L., Piparwar Area that on verification and inquiry, it was found that the petitioner appeared from Sherghati center and he passed the matriculation examination in third division in 1959 Annual Examination and his date of birth recorded was 21.08.1942. The petitioner also submitted a duplicate matriculation certificate before the authorities concerned, as issued by the Bihar School Examination Board, showing his date of birth as 21.08.1942. The grievance of the petitioner is that though in his Matriculation certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board, his date of birth was recorded as 21.08.1942, but, the Project Officer, Bachra by issue of letter dated 06.2.2002 as contained in Annexure -6 to the writ petition informed him that his request for correction of date of birth has not been agreed to by the competent authority in view of the fact that his date of birth was mentioned as 01.11.1941 in the form 'B Register as well as in P.S. -3 and P.S. -4 forms, maintained in the office. Subsequently, by issue of Annexure -7 dated 08/9 -02 -2002, the petitioner was informed that his representation dated 18.12.2001 was examined and it was found that there was no merit in his case. The petitioner states that he performed his regular duties till 07.02.2002, and only on and from 08.02.2002, he was stopped from working, but, for the period from November, 2001 till 07.02.2002, during the period he worked, he was not paid anything towards salary allowances etc. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that there was no material before the respondents to record his date of birth as 01.11.1941. As a matter of fact, his date of birth was 21.08.1942 as per the matriculation certificate. It is further contended that before entering into the service of the respondents, the petitioner had already passed matriculation examination in the year 1959, and his matriculation certificate establishes conclusively that his date of birth is 21.08.1942, therefore, when the respondents got his certificate verified from the Bihar School Examination Board, then in all fairness, his date of birth ought to have been recorded in his service sheet. It is further contended that the impugned Annexures -6 and 7, by which the petitioner was informed that his representation as well as his request for correction of date of birth has been rejected, but no reason has been assigned for such rejection and the order passed are not speaking orders. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it is stated that as per the entry in the companys record the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 01.11.1941, accordingly, the petitioner has retired from service on 31.10.2001. After his retirement, he has also received all the retiral dues including gratuity, arrears of salary, etc. It is further stated in the counter affidavit by the respondents that in the form B Register maintained by the C.C.L. as well as in P.S. -1, P.S. -3 and P.S. -4 forms contain the signature of the petitioner also show that the date of birth of the petitioner was entered in those records as 01.11.1941, and therefore, in view of these facts, the claim of the petitioner for correction of the date of birth was not entertainable therefore the same has been rejected. About the matriculation certificate of the petitioner, it is stated by the respondents in their counter affidavit that the said certificate was neither issued prior to the date of appointment of the petitioner nor it was brought to the notice of the respondent -company at the time of employment or even immediately thereafter, and therefore, on the said basis his date of birth as 21.08.1942 cannot be accepted since if that date of birth of the petitioner is accepted, then in that event, he would be below 18 years of age on the date he entered into the employment of C.C.L. i.e. on 25.11.1959. As per the companys records, the petitioner was an adult on the date of appointment, and therefore, his date of birth was correctly recorded in the relevant records of the company. In support of the statements made in the counter affidavit, the copies of service sheet, menial service register, form, P.S. -1, P.S. -3 and P.S. -4 have been annexed in order to show that the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 01.11.1941. It is not disputed that the service sheet i.e. Annexure -1 was supplied to the petitioner on 29.7.1987 showing his date of birth as 01.11.1941, I find that on the back of the Annexure -1 i.e. the service sheet, the petitioner did make endorsement that his date of birth was wrongly recorded which should be corrected. The said endorsement was made on that very date itself i.e. on 29.7.1987, the date on which the service sheet was supplied to the petitioner, therefore, it appears that the petitioner immediately objected about the wrong recording of his date of birth. From the matriculation certificate (Annexure -5) as well as the letter dated 29.09.2001 (Annexure -4) sent by the Bihar School Examination Board to the Office of the Chief General Manager, C.C.L., it appears that on verification it was found that as per the records maintained in the Examination Board his date of birth was 21.08.1942. It was also certified that he passed matriculation examination in third division in the Annual Examination of 1959. It is also not disputed that the petitioner was already a matriculate even prior to his appointment in C.C.L. So far the form P.S. -1, P.S. -3 and P.S. -4 which have been heavily relied upon by the counsel for the respondents to show that the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 01.11.1941, I find that these forms were filled up in the year 1998 i.e. much after the objection raised by the petitioner about wrong recording of his date of birth. It further transpires from the aforesaid three forms i.e. P.S. -1, P.S. -3 and P.S. -4 and that there is cutting and over -writings in the year of the birth of the petitioner recorded in those records. Therefore, the recording of the date of birth in those forms i.e. P.S. -1, P.S. -3 and P.S. -4 do not inspire confidence. The matriculation certificate is a most authenticated document for the date of birth of a person, therefore, I am inclined to accept the entry made in the Matriculation Certificate about the date of birth of the petitioner in place of relying on the entries made in the records of the respondent company which raise suspicion also about it. There are several decisions of this Court including that of the Division Bench wherein it has been held that Matriculation Certificate is the conclusive proof to establish the date of birth. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of this Court in case of Management of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., Ranchi Versus Mrs. Sarita Narayan and Ors. reported in 2003 (4) On consideration of the facts and circumstances stated above, I am of the view that the date of birth of the petitioner was 21.08.1942 and the same was wrongly recorded in the service sheet and other relevant records of the company as 01.11.1941, and he has wrongly been made to retire prematurely from 31.10.2001. In fact, he was entitled to continue in service till 31.08.2002, the date on which he would have superannuated on completion of the age of 60 years. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed, and the order as contained in Annexure -6 and 7 rejecting the representation of the petitioner for correction of the date of birth, are, hereby, quashed, and the respondents are directed to make necessary correction regarding the date of birth of the petitioner in their service records as 21.08.1942 in place of 01.11.1941. Since the petitioner has now reached the age of superannuation on 31.08.2002 itself, therefore, the question for direction to take him in service again does not arise. However, since he was prematurely retired from service, and therefore, the respondents are directed to pay him all the consequential benefit treating him to be in service till 31.08.2002. The respondent -C.C.L. is directed to pass a consequential order within a period of 8(eight) weeks from today. Since the petitioner was forced to retire prematurely and has been forced to go for litigation by the respondents, and therefore, this writ application is allowed with a cost of Rs.5000/ -(five thousand) to be paid to the petitioner within the aforesaid period.;

Click here to view full judgement.