Dismissed

Ram Prasad Paswan v. Bharat Cocking Coal Limited through Its Chariman Cum Managing Director

Jharkhand HC28 Nov 2022WPC/2789/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a writ petition challenging an order rejecting a request to change the petitioner's date of birth in service records. The Court held that the petitioner had acknowledged the correct date at appointment and changed it only at retirement, citing Supreme Court precedent prohibiting such late changes even if verified by external records.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The impugned order rejecting the representation was upheld.

Ram Prasad Paswan Vs Bharat Cocking Coal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 2789 of 2019

¶3

Ram Prasad Paswan aged about 57 years son of late Jagdish Paswan, Resident of near Shiv Mandir, Bastacolla, P.O. Bastacolla, P.S. Jharia, District-Dhanbad … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

1.Bharat Cocking Coal Limited through its Chairman cum Managing Director having office at Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. and P.S. Dhansar, District-Dhanbad

¶6

Director (Personal), Bharat Cocking Coal Limited, having office at Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. and P.S. Dhansar, DistrictDhanbad

¶7

Project Officer, Bastacolla Colliery, Bharat Cocking Coal Limited, P.O. and P.S. Dhansar, District-Dhanabd

¶8

Deputy Manager (Personal), Bastacolla Colliery, Bharat Cocking Coal Limited, P.O. and P.S. Dhansar, District-Dhanbad

¶9

… … Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶12

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Sameer Saurabh, Advocate Mr. Nitish Krishna, Advocate For the Respondents : None

¶13

¶14

06 /28.11.2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sameer Saurabh along

¶15

with Mr. Nitish Krishna, Advocate is present.

¶16

2. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents.

¶17

3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -

¶18

“(i) For issuance of direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of Office Order issued vide Reference Letter no. Bhakokoli/Bastakola/P-2/19/218 dated 8.02.2019 (Annexure9) by Respondent No. 3 by which representation of the petitioner for changing of his date of birth from 15.09.1957 to 9.02.1962 has been rejected.

¶19

(ii) The petitioner further prays that after quashing of the Office Order dated 08.02.2019, the respondents be directed to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 09.02.1962 and allow him to continue in service with all consequential benefits treating that he was not retired from the service on 30.09.2017.”

¶20

4. The matter relates to dispute regarding date of birth of the petitioner which has a bearing on his date of retirement.

¶21

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has relied upon his marks sheet of matriculation as contained in Annexure-4/1, where he failed and also the communication dated

¶22

¶23

09.11.2017 (Annexure-6) issued by Bihar School Examination Board, Patna issued to the respondents to submit that as per the records of the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, though he failed in matriculation, his date of birth has been recorded as 9.2.1962. During the course of argument, it transpired that as per Annexure-4/1, the duplicate marksheet was issued on 21.07.2017.

¶24

6. The learned counsel submits that the respondents had issued him the notice dated 07.04.2017 regarding his date of retirement as 30.09.2017 mentioning the date of birth as 15.09.1957. Learned counsel submits that in the service records, the date of birth of the petitioner has been wrongly recorded and consequently the petitioner had protested and the impugned order has been passed pursuant to order passed by this court in W.P. (S) No. 4909 of 2018 dated 12.10.2018 mentioning that the petitioner having raised the dispute with regard to date of birth at the fag end of the service, the claim of the petitioner regarding his date of birth cannot be accepted. The learned counsel submits that the impugned order is perverse and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

¶25

7. It is not in dispute that the impugned order has been passed pursuant to the order passed by this court in W.P. (S) No. 4909 of 2018 dated 12.10.2018 (Annexure-8). It was the specific case of the petitioner in the earlier round of litigation in W.P. (S) No. 4909 of 2018 the petitioner was appointed as miner/loader on 07.01.1980 and at the time of appointment the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 09.02.1962 on the basis of admit card, school leaving certificate and marksheet issued by Bihar School Examination Board, Patna but on account of wrong entries made in the records of the respondents, the date of birth of the petitioner has been wrongly shown as 15.09.1957. The respondents have opposed the writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that the date of birth cannot be changed at the fag end of the service. However, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction upon the concerned respondent to pass a reasoned order upon a representation and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶26

8. The petitioner filed representation stating that at the time of appointment on 07.01.1980, the petitioner had declared his date of

¶27

¶28

birth as 09.02.1962 and he had appeared in the matriculation exam in the year 1979. The respondent examined the records and found that in the entire service records the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 15.09.1957 which was duly acknowledged and accepted by the petitioner without raising any objection including in statutory register i.e form B register maintained under the Mines Act, the declaration furnished by the petitioner in form-A under C.M.P.F , identity card , service excerpts etc. but the petitioner never raised any objection , rather his own declaration also mentioned his date of birth as 15.09.1957. It was also recorded that as per the records the petitioner had declared himself as matric pass but the petitioner was non-matriculate but did not ever produce any educational qualification certificate at the time of induction. The authority has recoded that all along the petitioner was knowing that the date of birth has been recorded as 15.09.1957 but did not raise any grievance and raised the dispute only at the fag end of his service.

¶29

9. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the facts and circumstances of this case it is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on 07.01.1980 and was served with a letter dated 07.04.2017 informing that he was to retire on 30.09.2017 on attaining 60 years of age treating his date of birth as 15.09.1957 as per service records. The said order was challenged before this court in W.P. (S) No. 4909 of 2018. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 12.10.2018 by observing that this court was of the considered opinion that it will be in the interest of justice that the petitioner shall file a fresh representation within a period of two months and the respondents was directed to dispose of the same by speaking order. 10. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that as per the records of the respondent company at the time of appointment on 07.01.1980, as per form B register maintained under the Mines Act, the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 15.09.1957 where he has put his signature and acknowledged the date of birth. Thereafter in the CMPF form-A also, the petitioner had declared his date of birth as 15.09.1957 and had also put his signature. Thereafter again in the identity card register, the petitioner had put his date of birth as 15.09.1957 and put his signature in the identity card register

¶30

¶31

acknowledging his date of birth. Subsequently, in the year 1987, the petitioner was issued the service record excerpts wherein his date of birth was recorded as 15.09.1957 in which he had put his signature and acknowledged the entries. It has also been mentioned in the impugned order that in the service record excerpts, the petitioner had declared himself as matric pass whereas according to the petitioner he had appeared in the matriculation examination in the year 1979 and failed and he had not produced any educational certificate at the time of his appointment and there was no entry regarding his educational qualification in the service book.

¶32

11. This court finds that as per the impugned order, the date of birth of the petitioner was repeatedly recorded from time to time and the petitioner had also acknowledged his date of birth throughout as 15.09.1957. The impugned order also reflects that the petitioner never produced any document with regard to his educational qualification, though he claimed that he was matric pass. However, before the authority, while passing the impugned order, the petitioner claimed that he was matric fail and had produced the certificate regarding his appearance in the matriculation examination which appears to have been issued on 21.07.2017.

¶33

12. Thus , the petitioner throughout acknowledged and accepted his date of birth as 15.09.1957 in various records of the respondent company and as per the records the petitioner had never produced his matriculation certificate earlier including at the time of his entry in the service and also till the stage of issuance of his service excerpts and also later stage. The petitioner disputed his date of birth at the fag end of his service when a notice was issued to the petitioner intimating his date of retirement and relied upon the records of matriculation examination.

¶34

13. This case is squarely covered by the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411 wherein it has been held that change in date of birth in the service records is not permissible at the fag end of service merely because a verification was made from the Bihar School Examination Board and even if the date of birth as claimed by the petitioner was confirmed. It has been held that the

¶35

¶36

position is well established that if a particular date of birth is entered in the service register, a change sought cannot be entertained at the fag end of service after accepting the date of birth as per service record to be correct during entire service.

¶37

14. This court finds that the impugned order is a well-reasoned order whereby the representation of the petitioner seeking change of date of birth at the fag end of service has been rejected by recording that the petitioner has throughout declared and accepted his date of birth as 15.09.1957. Once the petitioner had acknowledged his date of birth throughout his service period as 15.09.1957, this court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order calling for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also important to note that if the date of birth as claimed by the petitioner is taken as 09.02.1962, the petitioner would have been less than 18 years of age on the date of appointment on 07.01.1980.

¶38

15. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶39

16. Pending I.A, if any, is closed.

¶40

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶41

Binit

Ram Prasad Paswan v. Bharat Cocking Coal Limited through Its Chariman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Prasad Paswan v. Bharat Cocking Coal Limited through Its Chariman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyanarayan Singh And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Amrendra Kumar Vs Shri Rajesh Kumar Sharma the Secretary Dept of School Education and Literacy

Prabhat Kumar Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Anjani Kumar Tiwari Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Rameshwar Rai And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Md Mustakim Ansari And Ors. Vs Co. Operative