In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
W.P.(S) No.5123 of 2007
Phoolchand Tripathi.........................................Petitioner
VERSUS
Steel Authority of India Limited and others...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD
For the Petitioner: M/s. S.K.Mishra and Kumar Nilesh
For the Respondents: Mr.Ananda Sen
Reserved on 21.1.2009 Pronounced on 2.2.2009
7. 2.2.09
It is the case of the petitioner that he had been appointed
on 19.9.1972 on the post of Electrician in the Chasnala Colliery, a
unit of Indian Iron and Steel Company. At the time of
appointment, the petitioner had furnished his matriculation
certificate showing date of birth as 3.7.1948 and hence, the
petitioner was always under impression that the same date of birth
has been recorded in the relevant records of the Company. In
course of time, the petitioner was given promotions and at every
occasion, the concerned authority before giving promotion, used to
scrutinize documents including educational certificate. But all on a
sudden, the petitioner was served with a letter dated 31.3.2007
(Annexure 6) intimating therein that the petitioner is to retire on
superannuation on 30.9.2007 as he will be completing 60 years of
age on 19.9.2007. Being shocked with the said communication,
the petitioner immediately made representation before the
respondent no.3 that as per the age recorded in the matriculation
certificate, the petitioner is supposed to retire on 31.7.2008 and
therefore, he may be allowed to work till that date. But no order
was passed, in spite of repeated reminders being given to them
and hence, there was no option left with the petitioner but to move
this Court for quashing the order contained in Annexure 6
2
intimating therein about the date of superannuation as 30.9.2007
and also for a direction to the authority to accept the age of the
petitioner as recorded in the matriculation certificate.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as
per the instruction no.76(A) of N.C.W.A-III, age of the employee
shall be governed by the date of birth recorded in the matriculation
certificate but the authority by giving complete go-bye to the said
instruction made the petitioner to retire prematurely which is quite
illegal, in view of the instruction no.76(A) and also in view of the
decision rendered by this Court in L.P.A. No.493 of 2006 and is also
against the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in
the case of Kamta Pandey vs. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal
Limited and others [2007(3) JLJR 726] holding therein that
the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate would
prevail over any other document showing age of the petitioner and,
therefore, the impugned order dated 31.3.2007 as contained in
Annexure 6 is fit to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled to
consequential relief.
However, the stand of the Steel Authority India Limited as
has been made out in the counter affidavit is that at the time of
appointment, the petitioner had not produced any document
whatsoever in proof of his age and, therefore, the petitioner was
medically examined by the Medical Officer and age of the petitioner
was assessed as 25 years as on 19.9.1972 and, accordingly, date of
birth was recorded as 19.9.1947 in statutory Form B register which
bears the signature of the petitioner indicating therein about the
acceptance of the age by the petitioner at the time of appointment
and accordingly, when the petitioner was intimated about the date
of superannuation as 30.7.2007, controversy was raised that the
petitioner’s date of birth as per matriculation certificate is
3
3.7.1948, though such certificate had never been produced by the
petitioner and as such, the petitioner cannot take any advantage of
that and under this situation, this writ application is fit to be
dismissed.
Thus, the question falls for consideration as to which date of
birth recorded in the matriculation certificate or in the statutory
Form B register be treated to be the correct date of birth.
There has been no dispute that as per Instruction
no.76(A)(i) age of the appointee is to be determined on the basis
of matriculation certificate but if a person is illiterate, then age of
the appointee is to be determined by the Medical Officer. In the
instant case, the petitioner does claim the age on the basis of date
of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate but such certificate
never seems to have been produced before the authority at the
time of assessment of the age as had the said certificate been
produced before the authority, the petitioner may not have been
asked to get the age assessed by the Medical Officer. Further it
does appear that when the age of the petitioner was assessed,
corresponding date of birth was entered in to the statutory Form B
register which seems to have been acknowledged by the petitioner
as statutory Form B register bears the signature of the petitioner.
But when the letter dated 31.3.2007 as contained in Annexure 6
was communicated to the petitioner at the fag end of his service
intimating therein about the date of superannuation, controversy
was raised and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed now to
raise the controversy relating to age. Under this situation, the ratio
laid down by the Full Bench of this Court will not be helpful to the
petitioner as in that case identify card issued to the petitioner was
bearing the same date of birth as it was there in the matriculation
4
certificate and even Seva Abhilekh contained the same date of
birth, though it was different in statutory Form B register and under
this situation, it was held that date of birth as recorded in the
matriculation certificate would prevail over other document
showing age of the person but, in the instant case, nothing seems
to be there on the record to establish or even to suggest that the
matriculation certified was produced at the time of recording age.
Almost in identical situation, this court in a case of Nand Kishore
Singh vs. The Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. and others (L.P.A
No.550 of 2006) was pleased to hold that date of birth cannot be
allowed to be changed at the fag end of the service when
certificate showing different date of birth was never produced
before the authority at the time of recording the age.
Thus, I do not find any merit in this writ application. Hence,
it is dismissed.
(R.R.Prasad, J.)
ND/