Dismissed¶10

Uma Ram v. Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Jharkhand HC9 Sept 2024WPC/644/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Correction of date of birth in service records/Form B; matriculation certificate versus medical-board-assessed age; belated representation after about 21 years of service; acquiescence in service-record entry; NCWA Clause 76 B(i)(a); Service Excerpt; retirement 31.05.2022; BCCL miner loader; (2020) 3 SCC 411 (Shyam Kishore Singh) applied; (2014) 12 SCC 570 (Chhota Birsa Uranw) cited by petitioner only; High Court of Jharkhand, single judge, writ dismissed.

What did the court decide?

A change of date of birth once entered in the service register cannot be entertained at the fag end of service after the employee has accepted the entry as correct throughout his entire service. ¶9

Uma Ram Vs Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 644 of 2018

¶2

------

¶3

Uma Ram, aged about 53 years, son of Ganesh Das, resident of Village Tarapur, Gomo, P.O. Gomo, P.S. Birno, District Gajipur

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

-Versus -

¶6

M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman-cumManaging Director, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad.

¶7

The Director Personnel (Head Quarter), M/s B.C.C.L., Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Seraidhela, District Dhanbad.

¶8

General Manager, (P & IR) Headquarter B.C.C.L. Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad.

¶9

The General Manager, Kusunda Area, Area-VI, M/s. B.C.C.L, P.O. Kusunda, P.S. Kenduadih, District Dhanbad.

¶10

The Project Officer, East Bassuria Colliery, M/s BCCL, P.O. East Bassuria, P.S. Tetulmari, District Dhanbad.

¶11

... … Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶14

¶15

For the Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate For the Resp. B.C.C.L : Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate

12/09.09.2024

Heard the parties.

The Petitioner has filed this writ application for issuance of direction upon the respondents to correct his date of birth as 05.10.1965 in accordance with the date of birth recorded in his matriculation certificate instead of date of birth as recorded in Form B as 07.05.1962.

¶20

The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed by the respondents on 02.12.1986 as Miner Loader. The date of birth of the petitioner was assessed by a medical board as 24 years at the time when the entries were made in Form B. The petitioner has after going through entries made in the Form B has signed the same. He did not raise any objection regarding the fact that his age has wrongly been mentioned.

¶21

It appears that in the year 2007, the petitioner gave an application before the respondents by enclosing his matriculation certificate that his date of birth as per the matriculation certificate was 05.10.1965 and as such entries made in the Form B should be rectified. However, the

¶22

respondents did not rectify the age of the petitioner as per his matriculation certificate and accordingly, he retired on 31^st May, 2022 as per the age assessed by the Medical Board.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in [ (2014) 12 SCC 570] in the case of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. Vs. Chhota Birsa Uranw, wherein it was held that the date of birth as mentioned in Form B has to be rectified as per the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate.

¶24

It was submitted that as per Clause 76 B(i)(a) of the NCWA, if the matriculation certificate has been issued prior to the date of appointment, the date of birth in Form B is to be corrected on the basis of the date of birth of employee mentioned in the matriculation certificate.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that petitioner had not furnished his matriculation certificate at the time of his joining, so no date of birth has been mentioned in his Service Excerpt and as such medical board was constituted and medical board assessed his aged as 24 years on 07.05.1986. It was further submitted that in the Service Excerpt of the petitioner, there is column that if there were objections, the same should have been raised immediately. It was also submitted that the petitioner had participated in the age assessment process before the medical board and he also did not declare that he was having matriculation certificate at that time and after 21 years, the petitioner had raised this objection.

¶26

It is settled principle of law, as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in [ (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 411 ] passed in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Others Vs. Shyam Kishore Singh, wherein it was held that;

¶27

“7. The fact that the respondent had joined the services of the appellants on 1-3-1982 is the accepted position. Though the respondent relies on the matriculation certificate to indicate that the date of birth stated therein is 20-1-1955, there is no material on record to indicate that the said document had been produced before

¶28

-2-

¶29

the employer at the time of joining employment. In that background, the service record maintained by the appellants will disclose that the date of birth indicated in the document is 4-3-1950 which had been furnished by the respondent himself as the relevant forms under his signature contain the said date. Though the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the High Court had noticed certain alteration of the date of birth as indicated in Form "B" the relevance of the said document cannot be considered without reference to the other documents in the service records. The very fact that the respondent through his representation made in the year 2009 was seeking for change of the entry relating to date of birth will indicate that what was contained in the service records is 4-3-1950, which was the position from 27-2-1982.

¶30

8. In the above background it is to be noticed as to whether the consideration as made by the High Court is justified. The learned counsel for the respondent with specific reference to para 10 in the order (Shyam Kishore Singh vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Jhar 3061) of the learned Single Judge referred to the aspect wherein the learned Single Judge has taken note of the representation made by the respondent in the year 2009 and the verification that was secured by the appellants from the Bihar School Examination Board. Though such reference is made, in our opinion, the same was not appropriate in the present facts when three decades had elapsed from the date of employment. The 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 same to be correct during entire service. In the instant facts the position is that the respondent entered service on 1-31982.The date of birth entered as 4-3-1950 has remained on record from the said date. The requirement to submit the nomination form indicating the particulars of the family and the nominee was complied with and it was submitted by the respondent on 25-5-1998. In the said nomination form the date of birth of the employee was required to be mentioned, wherein the respondent in his own handwriting has indicated the date of birth as 4-3-1950. Apart from that fact, the learned Additional Solicitor General would also point out that since there was a change in the method of maintaining the service register, all the employees were provided an opportunity to verify and seek for change in the service record in the year 1987. At

¶31

-3-

¶32

that stage also the respondent did not seek for any change. Therefore, in that circumstance, when the opportunity available at the first instance in 1987 had not been availed and thereafter on 255-1998 when the respondent himself in the Provident Fund nomination form had indicated the date of birth as 4-3-1950 which corresponds to the date of birth entered in the service register as on the date of commencement of the employment, merely because a verification was made from the Bihar School Examination Board and even if it was confirmed that the date of birth was 20-1-1955 such change at that stage was not permissible.”

¶33

From the aforesaid submissions made and the facts available on the record, it appears that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1986 as Miner Loader and in his Service Excerpt (Annexure 1), his date of birth was not mentioned. It further appears that the petitioner had not raised any objection when his Service Excerpt was prepared. Later on, the medical board assessed the age of the petitioner as 24 years on 07.05.1986 and the petitioner had put his signature on Form B. He has not raised any objection at the time when Form B was prepared for assessing his age in 1986 to be 24 years. The petitioner had made a representation on 20.03.2007 enclosing his matriculation certificate in the year 2007 that is after about 21 years of his service . The 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 same to be correct during entire service . The prayer for change in date of birth of the petitioner in his Service Excerpt after about 21 years of service and after accepting the same to be correct for 21 years of his career will not be permissible. The petitioner has also retired from his service on 31^st May, 2022.

¶34

Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.

¶35

Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.

¶36

(AmbujNath, J.)

¶37

Rahul/-

¶38

-4-

Uma Ram v. Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uma Ram v. Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

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

Sabir Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arsalan Anzar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arvind Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ram Chandra Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Uma Shankar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Pr Secretary Deptt of Personnel Administrative Reforms

Madhabi Rajwar Vs M/S Bharat Cocking Coal Ltd. through Its Managing Director