Badri Nath Roy Vs M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited Represented through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P. (S) No. 1361 of 2023

Badri Nath Roy, aged about 55 years, Son of Late Habu Babu Roy, Resident of J.C. Mallick Road, Near Pragati Enclave Apartment, Hirapur, P.O. Hiranpur, P.S. Dhanbad … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

M/s Bharat Cocking Coal Limited represented through its Chairman cum Managing Director, Office at Koyala Bhawan, P.O. Koyala Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, Dist. Dhanbad

¶6

The Senior Manager, Personnel, Bharat Cocking Coal Limited, Koyla Nagar, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S. Seraidhela, Dist. Dhanbad

¶7

The Deputy Manager (Personnel), Central Hospital, P.O. Jagjiwan Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, Dist. Dhanbad

¶8

The Chief of Medical Services, Central Hospital, P.O. Jagjiwan Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, Dist. Dhanbad … … Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶11

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate ---

¶13

12/13^th March 2024

¶14

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

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

¶16

“i. For quashing of letter dated 28.02.2023 (Annexure-3) contained in Memo No. 730-41 issued under signature of respondent no. 3 whereby and whereunder the letter dated 21.12.2022 informing the petitioner that he is going to be retire on 31.12.2023 has been cancelled and the petitioner has been informed that his date of birth has been recorded as 13.03.1963 in the initial Medical Board and he is going to retire on 31.03.2023.

¶17

ii. For direction upon the respondents to provide the entire service benefits to the petitioner for the service period as well as after his retirement with regard to fixation of pension gratuity and provident fund the date of birth of the petitioner to be 21.12.1963 as recorded in entire service record of the company and he has been provided the service benefits considering his aforesaid date of birth.

¶18

And/Or

¶19

For issuance of any other appropriate Writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case.”

¶20

Argument of the petitioner

¶21

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was issued a letter dated 21.12.2022 wherein it was indicated that the petitioner

¶22

2

¶23

would retire on 31.12.2023 and subsequently, another letter dated 28.02.2023 was issued indicating that the petitioner would retire on 31.03.2023 and the earlier letter dated 21.12.2022 was sought to be rectified. The learned counsel has further submitted that while issuing the letter dated 28.02.2023, it has been mentioned that at the time of initial appointment and initial Medical Board, the age of the petitioner on 13.03.1987 has been shown to be 24 years. The learned counsel has submitted that the service excerpts of the petitioner disclose the date of birth as 21.12.1963 and such date of birth is backed by School Leaving Certificate as contained in Annexure-5/1 which indicates that the date of birth of the petitioner is 21.12.1963.

¶24

4. The learned counsel has also submitted that while in service, the petitioner passed the Class-X examination in the year 1992 and his date of birth has been recorded as 21.12.1963. 5. The learned counsel has further submitted that the entire records of the petitioner reveal that the date of birth in all the records of the respondents has been mentioned as 21.12.1963 and therefore it is the respondents who are disputing the date of birth of the petitioner at the fag end who initially issued the correct notice for superannuation on 21.12.2022 and tried to dispute the same by another letter dated 28.02.2023 which is impugned in the present case.

¶25

6. The learned counsel submits that the present case was filed on 14.03.2023 when the objection raised by the petitioner vide letter dated 09.03.2023 was not responded. 7. The learned counsel has also submitted that the letter dated 21.03.1987 was only an offer of appointment and the petitioner was to submit various documents in support of his educational qualification/birth certificate etc. to prove the date of birth and ultimately the petitioner joined and his service excerpts were prepared and date of birth has been rightly recorded as 21.12.1963.

¶26

Argument of the respondents

¶27

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand has submitted that at the time of appointment, the petitioner was physically examined and as per self-declaration of the petitioner his age was 24 years and on appearance also, he was 24 years of age and consequently, the letter of appointment was issued on 21.03.1987.

¶28

3

¶29

9. The learned counsel has also submitted that the records indicate that while in service, the petitioner had taken permission for appearing in Class-X examination and he was granted such permission and in the declaration in Class-X examination, the petitioner mentioned his date of birth as 21.12.1963 and therefore in the service excerpts his date of birth was recorded as 21.12.1963 which was followed in subsequent documents also, but the age as recorded on 21.03.1987 at the time of appointment has to be taken as correct for all purposes that was never objected to by the petitioner and therefore the impugned letter dated 28.02.2023 rectifying the date of superannuation of the petitioner as 31.03.2023 does not call for any interference.

¶30

Findings of this Court

¶31

10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that on the basis of selfdeclaration of the petitioner and on the basis of his appearance before the Medical Board at the time of appointment, the age of the petitioner was recorded as 24 years and accordingly in the letter of appointment dated 21.03.1987, the age of the petitioner has been recorded as 24 years. However, from perusal of the letter of appointment, it appears that no specific date of birth has been mentioned therein. It has only been mentioned that the petitioner was 24 years as on 13.03.1987 which is the date of his appearance before the Medical Board for medical fitness. Admittedly, the age of the petitioner was recorded in the offer letter of appointment dated 21.03.1987 on the basis of appearance of the petitioner and his self-declaration. No medical test with regard to age/date of birth of the petitioner has been conducted. The dispute in connection with date of birth is only for a small period of nine months. The petitioner claims his date of birth as 21.12.1963 and therefore he claims that he is scheduled to retire on 31.12.2023 and as per the respondents, the petitioner would retire on 31.03.2023 by taking his age as 24 years as on 21.03.1987.

¶32

11. This Court also finds that the petitioner passed Class-X examination while he was in service and his School Leaving Certificate (though issued on 01.04.1993) and his matriculation certificate indicated that his date of birth was 21.12.1963. The said entry was admittedly made in the service excerpts of the petitioner. The records also reveal that subsequently all the documents of the

¶33

4

¶34

petitioner and all the declarations made by the petitioner indicated that his date of birth is 21.12.1963.

¶35

12. This Court also finds that on 21.03.1987, the petitioner was almost of the age of 24 years but his exact date of birth stood recorded only in the service excerpts which gave the exact date of birth of the petitioner as 21.12.1963. The recording of the date of birth as 21.12.1963 in the service excerpts and all the connected records was certainly within the knowledge of the respondents who on the basis of such documents had also issued the letter dated 22.12.2022 indicating that the petitioner would retire from service on 31.12.2023 and subsequently on the basis of his initial letter of appointment in which no specific date of birth was mentioned, a subsequent letter dated 28.02.2023 has been issued indicating his date of superannuation as 31.03.2023.

¶36

13. This Court is of the considered view that it is the respondents who are trying to dispute the date of birth of the petitioner at the fag end of his service. Once the specific date of birth has been recorded in service excerpts and no specific date of birth has been recorded in his letter of appointment and the difference is only minor in nature, the respondents were not justified in issuing another letter dated 28.02.2023 indicating that the petitioner would retire on 31.03.2023 although they had issued the letter dated 21.12.2022 recording the date of birth of the petitioner as 21.12.1963.

¶37

14. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the letter dated 28.02.2023 taking the date of retirement of the petitioner as 31.03.2023 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the letter dated 21.12.2022 would revive and the date of retirement of the petitioner is now required to be taken as 31.12.2023 with all consequential benefits. Since the petitioner have already attained the age of superannuation and in the intervening period, the petitioner has not worked therefore the petitioner would be entitled for 50% of back wages for the period the petitioner could not work. The 50% back wages be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of representation along with a copy of this order, failing which the amount will carry interest @ 12% per annum till the date of payment.

¶38

15. In compliance of the last order, the learned counsel for the respondents has produced the original records and the present order has been passed taking

¶39

5

¶40

care of the materials from the original records which has been placed before this Court.

¶41

16. The original file has been returned to the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶42

17. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.

¶43

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

¶44

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶45

Mukul

Badri Nath Roy v. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited Represented through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badri Nath Roy v. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited Represented through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ravindra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rekha Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Jiblal Mahato Vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Rani Devi Vs the Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

Jharkhand State Electricity Board Now Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through MD Shabir Ansari Vs Balki Devi