Prabhudayal Shukla Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited And Ors.

¶1

1

¶2

2024:CGHC:28994

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 2123 of 2013

¶6

1 . Prabhudayal Shukla S/o Shri Rohani Prasad Shukla Aged About 54 Years R/o Qtr No. 949, Subhash Nagar Colony, Ps Charcha, Tah Baikunthpur, Dist Koriya, Cg, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioners

¶8

versus

¶9

1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited And Ors. S/o Through Teh ChairmanCum-Managing Director, Seepat Road, Basant Vihar, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Cg, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 . The Chief General Manager Baikunthpur Area, Secl, Dist Koriya, Cg, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

¶11

3. The Chief Personnel Manager Baikunthpur Area, Secl, Dist Koriya, Cg, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

¶12

4. The General Manager M/ Sub Area Manager, Charcha Mine R.O. Secl Distt Koriya, Cg, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

¶13

5. The Are Determination Committee Head Office S.E.C.L., Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Through The Chairman, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respondents : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶17

Judgment On Board

¶18

05/08/2024

¶19

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

¶20

10.1 This Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or of like nature, directing the respondents to correct and rectify the date of birth of the petitioner as 15.11.1958 in place of 21.07.1955

¶21

2

¶22

in his entire service record and excerpts with further direction to continue the service of petitioner, as per the corrected date of birth and quash the impugned order/ communication letter dated 03.06.2013 (Anenxure P/8).

¶23

10.2 That, the command/ direction may kindly be issued to the respondents for producing the entire records of the Age Determination Committee including medical reports and other service records of the petitioner.

¶24

10.3 Any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper, may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.

¶25

2. Facts of the present case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as General Mazdoor Category-1 on 01.05.1979. In the service record, his date of birth is mentioned as 21.07.1955. The petitioner was promoted during his service tenure and he superannuated from service on 31.07.2015. During his service tenure, he moved an application before the respondent authority for correction of date of birth for the first first time on 05.06.1987 stating therein that his correct date of birth is 15.11.1958. In support of his contention, he produced a mark sheet of Class-XIth (higher secondary); but when no action was taken, he filed W.P.(S) No. 5562 of 2012 which was disposed of vide order dated 19.02.2013 directing the respondents therein to consider the representation moved by the petitioner strictly in accordance with the Implementation Instruction No. 76. The respondent authorities vide order dated 03.06.2013 rejected the claim of the petitioner.

¶26

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the correct date of birth mentioned in the higher secondary school certificate which the petitioner passed in the year 1979 is 15.11.1958. He further submitted that in the service record, the higher secondary mark sheet was placed on record but due to inadvertence, his date of birth was recorded as 21.07.1955. He also submitted that Implementation

¶27

3

¶28

Instruction No. 76 strictly says that the date of birth mentioned in the higher secondary certificate/mark-sheet would be the conclusive proof of date of birth; therefore, the respondent authorities ought to have corrected the date of birth of the petitioner according to his mark-sheet.

¶29

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would oppose. He submitted that the petitioner was appointed as General Mazdoor Category-1 on 01.05.1979 whereas he passed high school in the year 1980. He further submitted that the service book of the petitioner was prepared in the year 1987 and at that time, the mark-sheet was produced before the authorities but initially, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 21.07.1955. He referred to the statutory records of the petitioner like National Coal Development Corporation Service Register; members of the family; nomination form; and form-B pertaining to the petitioner where his date of birth is recorded as 21.07.1955. The documents stated above also bear the signature of the petitioner. He also submitted that the petitioner, just to get the benefit of the date of birth mentioned in the higher secondary mark sheet, moved an application for correction of the date of birth. He argued that the petitioner ought to have placed a higher secondary mark sheet at the time of joining the service. He further argued that though the petitioner was promoted twice, it does not give him any right to claim correction of date of birth. He also argued that Implementation Instruction No. 76 would not apply in the case of the petitioner as it is not a case where due to a mistake, an incorrect date of birth was recorded in the service book. He further contended that the petitioner himself disclosed his date of birth as 21.07.1955 at the time of joining the service, thus, this petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶30

4

¶31

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

¶32

6. On the last date of the hearing, the petitioner was directed to place on record the mark sheets from Classes Ist to Xth to substantiate his claim with regard to the date of birth but the petitioner could not produce the same; he has produced a school leaving certificate of Classes IXth and Xth where his date of birth is recorded as 15.11.1957.

¶33

7. From a perusal of the entries made in the service record, mark sheet of higher secondary examination and school leaving certificate, it is clear that the petitioner has three dates of birth:-

¶34

(i) 21.07.1955 as per service record;

¶35

(ii) 15.11.1958 as per higher secondary school certificate and;

¶36

(iii) 15.11.1957 as per school leaving certificates of Classes IX^th and X^th . Evidently, the service record was prepared in the year 1987 and at that time, perhaps the mark-sheet was not produced, therefore, the department could not correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the service record. In the statutory service records as stated above, the date of birth is clearly recorded as 21.07.1955 and these documents were duly signed by the petitioner himself without raising any objection on 18.05.1988 and 11.04.2011. However, in the service record which was prepared in the year 1987, it is mentioned that the petitioner has passed his higher secondary examination and his date of birth was recorded as 21.07.1955. Implementation Instruction No. 76 says that with regard to the date of birth, the mark sheet of higher secondary examination would be the conclusive proof.

¶37

8. In the present case, the petitioner raised an objection for the first time in the year 1987 and moved an application for correction of his date of birth on the basis of mark sheets of higher secondary examination

¶38

5

¶39

which he passed after joining the services in the year 1980. On the last date of the hearing, the petitioner was directed to place on record the mark sheets from Classes Ist to Xth but he failed to do so, therefore, an inference can be drawn that in those mark sheets, the date of birth must have been contrary to the pleadings made hereinabove. Thus, the petitioner could not prove that his date of birth which was disclosed by him at the time of joining was 15.11.1958, therefore, in the opinion of this Court; no case is made out for interference.

¶40

9. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed . No order as

¶41

to costs.

¶42

Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE

¶43

Ajinkya

Prabhudayal Shukla v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhudayal Shukla v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ku.nishu Shriwas Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Hari Prasad Gupta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rituraj Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ganpat Vs South Eastern Coal Field Ltd. and Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Shrivastava Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Seema Kosariya and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.