Ramprasad Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. And Anr.

(iv) Alternatively this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to refer the case of the petitioner for determination of his age before Age Determination Committee of the respondent Company.

¶23

(v) Cost of this petition be awarded to the petitioners.

¶24

(vi) Any other relief/ reliefs, order/ orders, direction/ directions and writ/ writs as may be deemed fit by the Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶25

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of General Majdoor Category-I on 05.06.1987. He would further submit that due to a mistake in the service record, the date of birth of the petitioner was entered as 05.06.1957 whereas his correct date of birth as per Mining Sirdar Certificate is 03.01.1962. He would also submit that on 18.02.2014 an application was moved before the respondent authorities to correct the date of birth and WPS No.1900 of 2014 was filed which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.04.2014 with liberty to pursue the representation. He would further contend that the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent authorities on 03.06.2014 on the basis of the B-Form and service sheet in which the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 05.06.1957. He would also contend that in the Mining Sirdar Certificate, the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as

¶26

3

¶27

03.01.1962 and such certificate is admissible according to the Implementation Instruction No.76 issued by the SECL itself.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Amar Singh vs. Sub Area Manager and Ors., WP No. 258 of 2004 .

¶29

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that at the fag-end of service on 18.02.2014 an application for correction of date of birth was moved. He would further submit that the petitioner was appointed on 05.06.1987 and his date of birth was recorded as 05.06.1957. He would also submit that till acquiring qualification of Mining Sirdar, no claim was made by the petitioner for correction of date of birth. He would argue that after getting the Mining Sirdar Certificate, the petitioner applied for a correction of date of birth. He would also contend that in Form-B and service sheet, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 05.06.1957 and this fact was within the knowledge of the petitioner but no steps were taken prior to 18.02.2014 to move any application for correction of the date of birth and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶30

Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Ambikeshwar Singh vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and Ors. , WPS No. 2379 of 2014 .

¶31

4

¶32

1. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents present on the record.

¶33

1. The service record of the petitioner would reveal that the petitioner was appointed on 05.06.1987 and his date of birth was recorded as 05.06.1957 in the Form-B and service-sheet. The petitioner acquired qualification of Mining Sirdar on 14.02.1992 in which his date of birth is recorded as 03.01.1962. The petitioner has failed to place any document to demonstrate the foundation of date of birth i.e. 03.01.1962 recorded in the certificate of Mining Sirdar and in the absence of any document it cannot be presumed that the entry made in the Mining Sirdar Certificate is correct one. In the service book particularly in Form-B and the service sheet, the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 05.06.1957. For the sake of argument, the date of birth recorded in the Mining Sirdar Certificate is correct even then, the petitioner kept mum for a period of 22 years and for the first time on 18.02.2014 moved an application for correction of his date of birth.

¶34

1. In the matter of Amar Singh (supra) , though the Mining Sirdar Certificate was produced to correct the date of birth, the case was referred to the Age Determination Committee. The Coordinate Bench while dealing with the issue involved in this case in paras 11 & 13, held as under:-

¶35

"11. Clause-B (i)(a) of the Instruction No.76 reads as follows:

¶36

“In the case of 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 cards issued

¶37

5

¶38

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.”

¶39

13. I find sufficient force in the arguments of Shri Mukhopadhyay that the case of the petitioner was not required to be referred to the Age Determination Committee because of the fulfillment and compliance of Clause-B(i)(a) of Instruction No.76 by the petitioner. Clause-C of Instruction No. 76 reads as under:-

¶40

"Age Determination Committee/Medical Board for the above will be constituted by the Management. In the case of employees whose date of birth cannot be determined in accordance with the procedure mentioned in (B)(i)(a) or (B)(i)(b) above, the date of birth recorded in the records of the company namely Form B register, CMPF records and Identity Cards (untampered) will be treated as final. Proved that where is a variation. in the age recorded in the records mentioned above, the matter will be referred to the Age Determination Committee/ Medical Board constituted by the Management for determination of Age.”

¶41

1. In the present case, the petitioner has claimed correction of date of birth on the basis of the Mining Sirdar Certificate which is one of the documents referred to in Instruction No.76 and may be used as foundation for correction of date of birth.

¶42

1. In the matter of Amar Singh (supra) , the case of the employee was referred to the Age Determination Committee, that order was quashed and he was found entitled to get all consequential benefits till the date of retirement but the facts of the present case are entirely different. In the present case, the claim of the petitioner was never referred to the Age Determination Committee, the Mining Sirdar Certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner in the year 1992 and for the first time, the petitioner moved an application for correction of date of birth on 18.02.2014 and the delay has not been explained by the petitioner in this petition. In paragraph 7 of the petition, it is stated that there is no delay in filing the petition, therefore, the

¶43

6

¶44

facts of the present case are distinguishable from the facts of

¶45

Amar Singh’s case.

¶46

1. In the matter of Ambikeshwar Singh (supra) , this Court while placing reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of T.P. Nataraja and the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Ikramuddin in paras 10 & 11 held as under:-

¶47

“10. In the matter of T. P. Nataraja (supra), while dealing with the issue of date of birth in para 10, it was held as under:-

¶48

“10. Considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court the law on change of date of birth can be summarized as under:

¶49

(i) application for change of date of birth can only be as per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable;

¶50

(ii) even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right;

¶51

(iii) application can be rejected on the ground of delay and latches also more particularly when it is made at the fag end of service and/or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation.”

¶52

11) The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Ikramuddin (supra) relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matter of T. P. Nataraja (supra) in para-14 held as under:-

¶53

“14. Therefore, applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, the representation made by the writ petitioner seeking change of his date of birth or to refer his case to the Age Determination Committee was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches also and as such the respondent/writ petitioner was not entitled for any relief. The order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be and is accordingly set aside.”

¶54

10) Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Division Bench and further considering the application for correction of date of birth moved by the petitioner on 18.02.2014 at the fag end

¶55

7

¶56

of service, in the considered opinion of this Court, no case is

¶57

made out for interference.

¶58

11) Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed . No

¶59

cost(s).

¶60

Sd/-