Bhagwan Singh Vs The General Manager Kusunda Area Of Gondudih Colliery Of Ms B C C L

For the Petitioner : Mr. J.S. Tripathi, Advocate Mr. Amandeep Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Respondents Ms. Aditee Dungrawat, Advocate For the State of Bihar Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate

¶11

12/04.03.2024 Heard the parties.

¶12

Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for correction in the date of birth recorded with the respondents – BCCL.

¶13

According to the petitioner, he was initially appointed in Kusunda Colliery on 31.03.1973. For the first time in the year 1992, petitioner raised the issue regarding correction of his date of birth. Further, petitioner raised the issue regarding correction of date of birth before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad on 19.01.1999. Petitioner had also filed several representations to correct the date of birth as per matriculation certificate i.e. 25.12.1945 but he respondents did not pay any heed and as such has been constrained to knock door of this Court. Petitioner thereafter approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 7166 of 2013, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 03.02.2015 for filing afresh.

¶14

Mr. Jai Shanker Tripathi, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Amandeep Kumar Pandey appearing on behalf of the petitioner strenuously urges that the service book of the petitioner clearly shows that the column of date of birth was blank. Learned counsel further urges that petitioner was forced to retire on 31.03.2001 instead of 25.12.2005. Petitioner has regularly been representing since the year 1992 but to no effect. Petitioner had also raised industrial dispute before the Tribunal taking a clear stand of implementation of Instruction No. 76 but the Tribunal did not interfere into the dispute raised by the petitioner. Learned counsel vociferously urges that the date of birth of an employee should be on the basis of matriculation certificate. Learned counsel further submits that his contention finds force from the Implementation Instruction No. 76 of the Standing Order of BCCL. It has further been argued that the date of birth as mentioned in the matriculation

¶15

RC

¶16

2

¶17

certificate was mentioned in the Form-B at the time of initial appointment and as such the same ought to have been considered by the respondents. Merely because petitioner was transferred from one colliery to another, the date of birth should not have been changed at the sweet will of the respondents. Even the certificate has been verified by the Bihar School Examination Board and has been found to be correct and as such the same should be considered by the respondents and the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate should be taken into consideration and correction to that effect should be made in the service excerpts.

¶18

Ms. Aditee Dungrawat, learned counsel representing BCCL opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and further argues that it is settled proposition of law that the date of birth cannot be subject matter of challenge at the fag end of service career. Learned counsel further submits that may be the date of birth found in the matriculation certificate was correct but the issue involved herein is whether the same can be altered or changed at the fag end of service. Petitioner for the first time raised the dispute regarding change of date of birth in the year 2012. He was appointed in the year 1973. He raised the industrial dispute in the year 1999 i.e. long after his appointment in the year 1973. Placing reliance upon various Judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court, learned counsel argues that this Court should not interfere in the matter in view of legal proposition set at rest in plethora of Judgments.

¶19

Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel representing Bihar School Examination Board fairly submits that certificate of the petitioner was duly examined and the same was found genuine.

¶20

Having heard counsel for the parties and considering facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition for the following facts and circumstances:

¶21

a. Admittedly petitioner had never submitted his matriculation certificate at the time of appointment, which has never been refuted by the petitioner. It is only after completing 26 years of service, the dispute regarding date of birth has been raised by the petitioner. Petitioner accepted the date of birth as mentioned in the service excerpts all along his service.

¶22

b. Oral averments have been made that the documents were properly submitted before the authorities at the time of initial appointment

¶23

RC

¶24

3

¶25

and the same finds place in Form-B. This Court has held in plethora of Judgments that even in Jharkhand Service Code and Bihar Service Code, it has been clearly stipulated that any objection regarding date of birth has to be made within a period of ten years from initial appointment. In the instant case, for the first time objection has been raised after 19 years of initial appointment, the same cannot be entertained and rightly the same has been rejected.

¶26

c. The issue fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & others Vs. Shyam Kishore Singh reported in (2020) 2 Supreme Today 189, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “request for change of date of birth in the service records at the fag end of service is not sustainable”.

¶27

d. The Courts have repeatedly held that ïf Government servants sleep over their right and are not vigilant the Court cannot come to their rescue/ aid and grant relief only because they were ignorant of the Rules. Even if petitioner has good case for intervention, no interference can be made by this Court. The instant case is the glaring example where relief cannot be granted because of ignorant of the Rule. Petitioner has slept over his rights and was not vigilant.

¶28

e. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterating the same view, in case of State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas , reported in (2011) 9 SCC 664 has held as under:-

¶29

“8. It needs to be emphasised that in matters involving correction of date of birth of a government servant, particularly on the eve of his superannuation or at the fag end of his career, the court or the tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the service book at the time of entry into any government service. Unless the court or the tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and that such a claim is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed or as per the consistent procedure adopted by the department concerned, as the case may be, and a real injustice has been caused to the person concerned, the court or the tribunal should be loath to issue a direction for correction of the service book. Time and again this Court has expressed the view that if a government servant makes a request for correction of the recorded date of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond the time fixed by his employer, he cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth, even if he has good evidence to establish that the

¶30

RC

¶31

4

¶32

recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. No court or the tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights.”

¶33

The Hon’ble Court has further expressed his view in

¶34

para-12 thereof, which reads as under:

¶35

“12. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the delay of over two decades in applying for the correction of date of birth is ex facie fatal to the case of the respondent, notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific rule or order, framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application could be filed. It is trite that even in such a situation such an application should be filed which can be held to be reasonable. The application filed by the respondent 25 years after his induction into service, by no standards, can be held to be reasonable, more so when not a feeble attempt was made to explain the said delay. There is also no substance in the plea of the respondent that since Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code does not prescribe the time-limit within which an application is to be filed, the appellants were duty-bound to correct the clerical error.”

¶36

In the instant case petitioner is claiming change in date of birth at the fag end of service, the same cannot be interfered with and as such instant writ petition merits dismissal.

¶37

As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, regulations, guidelines, legal proposition and judicial pronouncements, this writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶38

RC

Bhagwan Singh v. The General Manager Kusunda Area Of Gondudih Colliery Of Ms B C C L

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwan Singh v. The General Manager Kusunda Area Of Gondudih Colliery Of Ms B C C L

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Riddhi Goyal Vs Ritesh Mittal

Anuradha Burnwal Vs Mayank Raj

Neha Tiwari Alias Neha Pathak Vs Sidharth Tiwari

Dhirendra Kumar Roy Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mukteshwar Datta Singh Vs Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Raghubans Singh Vs State of Jharkhand