ORDER
Vikramaditya Prasad, J.
1. Heard both sides.
2. The dispute with regard to the date of birth/age of the petitioner is the subject matter of this writ petition. Earlier the petitioner had come to the Court and the Court directed him to file representation to be disposed of by the competent authority by a reasoned order. Consequent to the Court’s order, the competent authority, the General Manger, I/C (P and IR), has passed the impugned order, rejecting the claim of the petitioner that his date of birth is 3.11.1947. On consideration of the Service Excerpts, Form B Register, the authorities came to a finding that the date of birth of the petitioner was not 3.11.1947, rather it was 3.11.1939.
3. The petitioner bases his claim mainly on the report of the Jafri Committee and shows to the Court different note-sheets, under which the age was sought to be entered into the Computer, but for some reason, it could not be entered into the Computer and ultimately the petitioner was superannuated as per the date of birth recorded in the Form B Register and Service Excerpts.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied on the NCWA, Implementation No. 76, particularly its Clauses-13, BCDE and F.
5. Some more facts are relevant in this context. The petitioner, it appears, had also moved for conciliation, which had failed and the appropriate Government had refused to refer the matter to the Tribunal on the ground that at the fag end of career, such a dispute cannot be raised.
The question is what the respondents had to do in the case of dispute with regard to the date of birth/age, though the learned counsel appearing for the respondents began with argument that the Jafri Committee is not at all a Committee, but, quickly switched over to the argument that the said Committee was not a Statutory Committee and therefore, its report is not binding. The sum total of his argument is that as per the Implementation Scheme, the determination of the age has to be made by an Apex Medical Board and the determination of age is to be based on the documents referred to above, if not medically examined. Jafri Committee was a Committee constituted by the respondents to assess the age of those employees, who dispute the correctness of the recordings/entries made in different papers, such as Service Excerpts, Form B Register, Identity Cards and CMPF Registers. In the Instant case, as per the Form B Register, the date of birth of the petitioner is 7.11.1939; the Identity Card appears to be tampered because it has cutting and it has been re-written on the basis of the Jafri Committee. If the Jafri Committee report was not final, then the question of re-entering the new date of birth or an approximate age on the Identity Card would not have risen: The CMPF record is also not very clear because it has also certain fresh recording/entries and according to it, the date of birth comes to the year 1947. The Service Excerpts discloses the date of birth of the petitioner to be sometime in the year 1939 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents says that it was never objected to and therefore, what the Service Excerpts, Form B Register shows is final as they are the final documents with regard to the determination of the age of the petitioner. The learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner then argues that if there was no dispute then there could not have been any occasion/question for the petitioner to go to the Jafri Committee, The very finding of the Jafri Committee says that the matter was examined by that Committee. It could not have been examined unless there was dispute from the side of the petitioner. Thus, these circumstances prove that when the Jafri Committee was constituted for the assessment of the age, the dispute has been raised by the petitioner with regard to the correction of his age, meaning thereby that the petitioner doubted and disputed the entries made in the Service Excerpts and also in the Form B Register.
6. The competent authority in the impugned order with regard to the Jafri Committee report has observed as follows :–
“Jafri Committee Report over which Sri Mahto has strongly relied upon that will not nullify the entry made in the Form ‘B’ Register which is the most reliable and authentic document in respect of recording of age of a workman in a coal mine,”
7. I think that these reasons set the whole matter in a circle, i.e., it leads from a point of dispute and again ends at that point. No body can say that the Form B Register is not an authentic document. But no body can say that entries made therein cannot be disputed. Because if this right is taken away, then it means that whatever entry is there, that is permanent and final against which dispute cannot be allowed to be raised. Therefore, when the Jafri Committee was constituted, obvious it is that the correctness of the entries made in Form B Register was to be tested as correctness of the recording made in the Form B Register became subject of controversy. Therefore, the report of the Jafri Committee has got relevance.
8. Now coming to the provisions of the Implementation Instruction No. 76 relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, I find that Clause (B) deals with the Review/Determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees. Thus this provision means that there can, be a review or/and also determination of the date of birth of the employees who are in existence of the Company. Admittedly, the petitioner was an existing employee, he was not an educated one and therefore, his case was not covered by the provisions of Clauses (i)(a) or (i)(b) Clause B (ii), being apposite, is quoted below :–
“(ii) Wherever there is no variation in records, such cases will not be reopened unless there is a very glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the Management. The Management after being satisfied on the merits of the case will take appropriate action for correction through Determination Committee Medical Board.”
This provision clearly indicates that only when there is no variation in record, the case cannot be reopened, meaning thereby, if there is variation in record, the case can be reopened. By referring the matter to the Determination Committee/Medical Board, the respondents themselves created a situation for a presumption that there was a variation in the records. Clause ‘C’ provides that in the cases of those employees, whose cases are not covered by the Clauses (B)(i)(a) of (B)(i)(b) i.e. who neither have Matriculation Certificates, nor have Mining Sardarship Certificate, CMPF Records and Identity Card (untampered) will be treated as final. This is the trump card of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. But the proviso thereto, reads as follows :–
“Provided that where there is a variation, in the age recorded in the records mentioned above, the matter will be referred to the Age Determination Committee Medical Board constituted by the Management for determination of age.”
9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has argued that the Jafri Committee was not a Medical Board and therefore, its recommendations have no bearing. Even if it was not a Medical Board that at least it was a Committee constituted for the purpose of assessing the age of the petitioner and other, which it did.
10. Now the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that unless the age is determined by the Apex Medical Board, that cannot become binding and for this, he refers to the relevant provisions made in Clause (F), which reads as follows :–
‘(F) Where the Management i.e. Area Age Assessment Committee (emphasis stressed) consisting of General Manager, Personnel Manager and Medical Officer-In-Charge of the Area is satisfied that there is a glaring disparity between the date of birth recorded in the identity cards and the apparent age of the employee (emphasis stressed) the cases may be referred to the Apex Medical Board located at Headquarters of the Company for determination of age.”
The provision made in Clause (F) clearly postulates an Area Age Assessment Committee and in absence of any positive pleading that the Jafri Committee was not such a Committee, the Jafri Committee appears to be an Age Assessment Committee, which gave the date of birth to be 3.1.1947. Obviously, the report indicates a glaring disparity between the date of birth as assessed and as appearing in the Form B. In that situation, the respondents were duty bound under this provision to refer the matter to the Apex Medical Board for final determination of the age to bring the matter to legal end. The respondents lacked badly in their duty and did not refer the matter to the Apex Medical Board. The result of all these was that the report of the Jafri Committee made at that stage cannot be said to be final, nor it can be said to be honest, which was sought to be challenged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Rather the position aggravated because of the non-compliance of the provisions made in Clause (H), which requires that after the date of birth is determined, it should be computerized, but as his date of birth was not finalized by the Apex Medical Board, this provision could not have been followed. But unfortunately, from the various order-sheets relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and annexed with the writ petition, it appears that attempts were made by the different authorities for getting the matter computerized but it was not computerized, though no specific reason has been given therefor in any of the order-sheets.
11. Now the sum total of these discussions is that the Jafri Committee provides a basis for making a pleading that petitioner’s date of birth is 3.11.1947, but this is not a final decision. Since this matter was raised much earlier, it cannot also be said that the petitioner has raised this dispute at the fag end of his career. Therefore, the reasons given by the competent authority in the impugned notification in an attempt to conceal his own lapses and his attack on the Jafri Committee report in very ambiguous terms cannot be held to be Justified. The competent authority should have given reasons as to why after the report of Jafri Committee, which is an Age Assessment Committee, the matter was not referred to the Apex Medical Board. No reasoning has been given for this. Consequently, this order does not touch the very fact, which is the core of the dispute in this case. Therefore, the impugned order has got to be set aside and accordingly is set aside. The only remedy left for the respondents is that the petitioner even though he has retired, could be medically examined by the Apex Medical Board and after determination of his age by the said Board on the basis of the Medical Jurisprudence it will be clear as to what the approximate date of birth of the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents are directed to get the petitioner medically examined for the purpose of determination of his age by the Apex Medical Board as per the Rules referred to above and the determination of the age as made by the Apex Medical Board will be final, conclusive and binding on the both the parties with obvious consequences.