Dismissed¶27

Haradhan Modak v. the Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Service law – Date of birth

Jharkhand HC3 Dec 2025WPC/2736/2018

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi; W.P. (S) No. 2736 of 2018; Haradhan Modak v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors.; Deepak Roshan, J.; decided 03.12.2025; change of date of birth; stale claim; fag-end of service; BCCL; Instruction No. 76 / Instruction No. 76B(i)(a); Form PS-3, Form PS-4, Form 'B' statutory register; date of birth 18.03.1958; superannuation March 2018; writ application dismissed, no costs, pending I.A. closed.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's claim for correction of his date of birth is a stale claim, having been raised in 2003 after a gap of 21 years from his 1982 appointment, and on this score alone the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. ¶21

Haradhan Modak Vs the Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:JHHC:36192

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P. (S) No. 2736 of 2018

¶4

Haradhan Modak, aged about 57 yrs. Son of Sri Bhim Modak, Resident of Amlabad Project, P.O. & P.S. Amlabad, Dist. Dhanbad.

¶5

...... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman-CumManaging Director having its office at Koyla Bhavan, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S. Saridhella District Dhanbad.

¶8

The Director Personnel, BCCL, having its office at Koyla Bhavan, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S. Saridhella District Dhanbad.

¶9

The Project Officer, Amlabad Project, BCCL, Dhanbad having its office at Amlabad, P.O. & P.S. Amlabad, Dist. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad. ..... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶11

--------For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate

¶12

06/Dated:-03.12.2025

¶13

1. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of the “Reasoned Order” passed by the Respondent Coal Company; whereby his prayer to change his date of birth has been rejected.

¶14

2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1982 and for the first time he made a representation before the concerned authorities in 2003 and thereafter, he continued to make representations. However, till 2015, when his grievance was not addressed he was forced to file a writ application before this Court which was registered as W.P.(S) No.4513 of 2015 and the said case was disposed of by giving direction to the respondents to consider the certificate issued by the Board prior to the date of employment in view of

¶15

¶16

2025:JHHC:36192

¶17

implementation Instruction No. 76B(i)(a) and pass a reasoned order. A reasoned order has been passed which is at Annexure-6.

¶18

3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the reasoned order has not been passed strictly in compliance to this Court’s order as Instruction No.76 has not been considered; accordingly, the same be quashed and set aside. Even otherwise, there are several perversities in the reasoned order.

¶19

4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer of the petitioner and defended the impugned reasoned order.

¶20

5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and after going through the documents available on record, it appears that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1982 and for the first time, after a gap of 21 years, in 2003, he raised the dispute with regard to correction of his date of birth by filing representation. Thereafter, he again waited for 12 years and knocked the door of this Court which directed the respondents to consider his case in view of Instruction No.76. Finally, the petitioner superannuated in March, 2018.

¶21

6. In crux, the claim of the petitioner is stale claim and the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments has held that the issue of date of birth cannot be raised at the fag-end of service; as such, on this score alone, the petition is fit to be dismissed.

¶22

7. Even otherwise, after going through the documents annexed with the counter affidavit, i.e. Form PS - 3, Form PS - 4 and Form ‘B’ which is a statutory register, the date of birth of the

¶23

¶24

2025:JHHC:36192

¶25

petitioner is mentioned as 18.03.1958.

¶26

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted before this Court that all documents were duly signed by the petitioner, therefore, in no case it can be assumed that petitioner was not knowing the veracity of the documents as he duly signed all those documents including Form ‘B’ register. On this score also, the petitioner is not having a good case.

¶27

9. Accordingly, no relief can be granted to this petitioner and the instant application stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed.

¶28

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶29

December 3, 2025 vikas/uploaded 05/12/2025

¶30

Haradhan Modak v. the Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haradhan Modak v. the 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indian Airlines Ltd. And Anr. Vs Union of India And Ors.

Bijali Kumari Vs Human Resources Department

Pritam Chakravarty Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raghunandan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ranbir Kumar Singh Vs M/S Usha International Ltd. And O

Jagannath Manjhi Vs State of Jharkhand