Dismissed

South Eastern Coal Filed Ltd. v. Nanki Prasad

Chhattisgarh HC4 Apr 2024WA/143/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal by coal field authorities against a Single Judge's order granting a date correction to a retired employee. The bench held that the lower court did not commit any legal error in relying on an admitted clerical mistake, despite the appellants' argument regarding procedural lapses.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; Single Judge's order allowing correction of date of birth affirmed.

South Eastern Coal Filed Ltd. Vs Nanki… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WA No. 143 of 2024

¶5

South Eastern Coal Filed Ltd. A Company Duly Registered Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956, Through The ChairmanCum-Managing Director, Seepat Road, Pb-60, Thana Sarkanda, Bilaspur (Cg.)

¶6

Chierf General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Raigarh Are, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, (C.G.).

¶7

General Manager ( P And A). South Eastern Calfields Ltd. Industrial Relations Department, Seepat Road, Bilaspur,distt- Bilaspur (C.G.).

¶8

Senior Manager ( Personnel), South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Raigarh Area,raigarh, District- Raigarh, (C.G.).

¶9

Area Personnel Manager, Raigarh Area, Secl, P.S.- Chhote Atarmuda, Raigarh, Distt- Raigarh ( C.G.).

¶10

Coal India Ltd., Company Duly Registered Under, The Provisions Of Companies Act, 1956, A Government Of India Undertaking Through The Chairman- Cum Managing Director, 10 Netaji Subhash Road, Coal Bhawan, Kolkata, ( West Bengal ).

¶11

---- Appellants

¶12

Versus

¶13

Nanki Prasad S/o Shri Gokul Prasad, Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Moddak, Police Station Jaigarpur, Post Office Maldah, District Janjgir-Champa (Cg)

¶14

Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. A Company Duly Registered Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956, Through The Chairman Cum-Managing Director, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Thana And Post Koyla Nagar, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand)

¶15

Project Officer, Futki Balihari Project, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. PostKusunda, Dhanbad (Jharkhand)

¶16

---- Respondents

¶17

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶18

For Appellant : Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Advocate.

¶19

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶21

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board

¶22

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶23

05.04.2024

¶24

Heard Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No.1 on I.A. No.02/2024 is an application for condonation of delay of 81 days in filing the instant appeal.

¶25

For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.02/2024 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally.

¶26

This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 17.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 6753 of 2016, whereby, the writ petition filed by writ petitioner/respondent No.1 herein was allowed by the learned Single Judge.

¶27

The facts of the case according the appellants are that the respondent No. 1/ writ petitioner filed WP(S) No. 6753/2016 claiming the relief of quashing and setting aside the order dated 06.10.2015, which was an order informing the respondent No.1/ writ petitioner that his date of birth 09.01.1953 as recorded in service register was considered correct and also seeking reinstatement till the respondent No.1/petitioner attains the age of 60 years i.e. till 31.01.2019. The

¶28

¶29

present appellants replied the petition submitting that in instruction No.76 issued under National Coal Wages Agreement (NCWA) procedure for determining/verifying the age of an employee are given and the claim of the respondent No.1/petitioner cannot be accepted as it did not fulfill the mandatory requirement/procedure stipulated by implementation instruction No. 76. The present appellants stand was that as individual medical report is not available and approval of the competent authority is also not available at Kustore Central Hospital where the age was assessed to authenticate the same as per the instruction No. 76 claim of the respondent No.1/petitioner cannot be granted.

¶30

By judgment dated 17.10.2023, the Single Judge has allowed the WP(S) No. 6753/2016 and has set aside the order dated 06.10.2015 and has also directed the appellants to correct the date of birth of the respondent No.1/petitioner as now 09.01.1959 as per medical report of BCCL and also to grant all consequential benefits. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred this present appeal.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the correction of date of birth at the fag end of his service is not permitted and Hon'ble Supreme Court has continuously deprecated such practice. Admittedly respondent No.1/petitioner raised the age dispute only in 2011 i.e. two years from prior to his retirement. The WP(S) No. 6886/2011 was filed but was withdrawn and thereafter WP(S) No. 1327/2013 was filed after the

¶32

¶33

respondent No.1/petitioner has retired on 31.03.2013. So the challenge to date of birth was after the retirement has taken place as such as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court respondent No.1/petitioner cannot be granted any relief. While passing order in WP(S) No. 1327/2013, the High Court has directed the appellants to take fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law on the basis of materials forwarded to it by BCCL dated 28/29.09.2011 and 18.02.2012. The appellants passed a reasoned and speaking order mentioning that the copy of medical report nor approval of competent authority approving the age assessment age 30 years is available at Kustore Central Hospital, BCCL and after examining all the aspects related to the age dispute the date of birth 09.01.1953 as recorded in service register was considered correct. Learned Single Judge failed to examine aspect that in absence of medical report and approval of competent authority age dispute of the respondent No.1/petitioner cannot be resolved specially when there is discrepancy in the Form-B and service records.

¶34

He further submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have seen that since 1994 when the respondent No.1/petitioner was transferred to present appellants establishment the date of birth 09.08.1953 was recorded in all the service records and respondent No.1/petitioner never raised any dispute over the correctness of service records which included CMPF and LTC records also and the first time respondent No.1/petitioner raised dispute was after his

¶35

¶36

retirement. As such treating the date of birth as 09.08.1953 was correct course of action adopted by appellants based on the service records and as per the implementation instruction no. 76 issued under NCWA the date of birth of employees if it cannot be determined in accordance with procedure mentioned in (B)(i)(a) or (B) (i) (b) the date of birth recorded in records of the company namely Form-B, register, CMPF records and Identity Card (un-tempered) will be treated as final and in case of variation only in the age recorded in the records mentioned above matter will be referred to ADC/Medical Board. So as per the procedure given in the implementation instruction no. 76 there was no occasion for the appellants to disbelieve the age recorded in the records. He later submits that the letters of the BCCL addressed to present appellants which have been heavily relied by the Learned Single Judge do not provide the medical report nor do they provide the approval of the competent authority. This coupled with the fact that no explanation has been provided by the BCCL or the respondent No.1/petitioner regarding need of the respondent No.1/petitioner undergoing medical examination in 1989 for assessment of his age and inaction of the respondent No.1/petitioner not challenging his date of birth till his retirement raises serious doubt over the claim of the respondent No.1/petitioner.

¶37

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 / writ petitioner opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for

¶38

¶39

the appellants and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 / writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for.

¶40

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal.

¶41

While allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 herein has observed that despite a clear direction of this Court in the earlier round of litigation to the respondent authorities to take a fresh decision in light of the letters dated 28/29.09.2011 and 18.10.2012, but they have again passed similar order on the ground that copy of medical report and approval of the competent authority is not available with them. Thus, it is clear that the respondent authorities are not following the order of this Court in its true letter and spirit. In its letter dated 18.10.2012, the Project Officer of BCCL has clearly admitted the fact that due to clerical mistake, the date of birth was wrongly entered in the service book of the petitioner but the respondent authorities did not consider this letter and again passed the similar impugned order in contravention of the directions of this Court issued in the earlier order. Accordingly, set aside the impugned order dated 06.10.2016 (Annexure-P/1) directing the appellant authorities to correct the date of birth of the respondent No.1/ writ petitioner as 09.01.1959 as per the medical report of BCCL and grant all consequential benefits to the respondent No.1/ writ petitioner

¶42

¶43

accordingly as per the rules.

¶44

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.

¶45

Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed . No cost(s).

¶46

Sd/Sd/-

¶47

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha ) Judge Chief Justice

¶48

Chandra

South Eastern Coal Filed Ltd. v. Nanki Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

South Eastern Coal Filed Ltd. v. Nanki Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaylal Prajapati Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Samresh Sarkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Omprakash @ Sonti Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dadan Ram Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt.Sonamati Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tikeshwar Puri Goswami Vs State of Chhattisgarh