WRIT PETITION (SERVICE) NO. 2340 OF 2002
[In the matter of an Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India]
.....
1. Bhagwat Singh ...... ..... ...... ...... ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. Central Coal Field Limited
2. Personnel Manager, M.P.& Establishment, C.C.L.,
Darbhanga House, Ranchi
3. Chief General Manager, Staff Officer (P&A),C.C.L.
Piparwar Area, P.O. Bachra, Dist.-Hazaribagh
4. Director Personnel, C.C.L., Ranchi
5. Project Officer, Bachra, Piparwar Area, C.C.L.,
District : Hazaribagh ...... ..... ...... ...... Respondents
....
For the Petitioner : Mr. V. N. Jha
For the Respondents : Mr. Ananda Sen
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESHWAR SAHAY
----
Amareshwar Sahay, J. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the
following reliefs:
(i) to quash the order dated 06.02.2002 ( Annexure-6 )
and order dated 08.02.2002 ( Annexur-7 ) by which
the representation of the petitioner for correction of
the date of birth has been rejected;
(ii) for a direction to the respondents to allow the
petitioner to continue in service till August, 2002 on
the basis of the date of birth as recorded in his
matriculation certificate;
(iii) to quash the Annexure-2 i.e. the order dated
19.10.2000
directing the petitioner to superannuate
on and from 01.11.2001;
(iv) to direct the respondents to correct his date of birth
as 21.08.1942 in place of 01.11.1941 on the basis of
the date of birth recorded in the matriculation
certificate, and
(v) to pay the salary since December, 2001 for the period
he worked.
W.P.(S) NO.2340 OF 2002
2
The case of the petitioner, in short, is that he was initially
appointed on 25.11.1959 on the post of Pump Khalasi and was
posted at Piparwar Project of the C.C.L. in the District of
Hazaribagh. He passed matriculation examination in the year 1959,
the result of which was published in June, 1959 i.e. before his
initial appointment.
The grievance of the petitioner is that though his actual date
of birth is 21.08.1942 as recorded in the matriculation certificate,
but in the service sheet, his date of birth was wrongly recorded as
01.11.1941. In the year 1987-88, the respondents supplied the
service sheet to each employee of the C.C.L., and one of such
sheet was also supplied to the petitioner, from which he came to
know for the first time that his date of birth has wrongly been
recorded in his service sheet as 01.11.1941. He immediately raised
objection and made endorsement in the service sheet itself that the
date of birth has wrongly been recorded, therefore, it should be
corrected as per the matriculation certificate. A copy of said service
sheet has been annexed as Annexure-1 to this writ petition. During
the period the matter regarding correction of date of birth was
pending, the respondents issued a notice to the petitioner dated
19.10.2000 as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition,
informing him that he would retire from service with effect from
01.11.2001 on attaining the age of superannuation. On receipt of
the said notice, the petitioner made a representation to correct his
date of birth on the basis of his matriculation certificate.
Thereafter, on 30.10.2000, a letter as contained in Annexure-3 was
issued to the petitioner asking him to submit mark-sheet issued by
the Bihar School Examination Board, the admit-card etc. as well as
the name of the center from which he appeared in the said
W.P.(S) NO.2340 OF 2002
3
matriculation examination. The petitioner submitted those details
as required.
Further, the case of the petitioner is that the respondents
also enquired from the Bihar School Examination Board about the
genuineness of the documents submitted by the petitioner, and in
reply to that, by issue of a letter dated 29.09.2001, the Bihar
School Examination Board, informed the Office of the Chief General
Manager, C.C.L., Piparwar Area that on verification and inquiry, it
was found that the petitioner appeared from Sherghati center and
he passed the matriculation examination in third division in 1959
Annual Examination and his date of birth recorded was 21.08.1942.
The petitioner also submitted a duplicate matriculation certificate
before the authorities concerned, as issued by the Bihar School
Examination Board, showing his date of birth as 21.08.1942.
The grievance of the petitioner is that though in his
Matriculation certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination
Board, his date of birth was recorded as 21.08.1942, but, the
Project Officer, Bachra by issue of letter dated 06.2.2002 as
contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition informed him that his
request for correction of date of birth has not been agreed to by
the competent authority in view of the fact that his date of birth
was mentioned as 01.11.1941 in the form ‘B’ Register as well as in
P.S.-3 and P.S.-4 forms, maintained in the office. Subsequently, by
issue of Annexure-7 dated 08/9-02-2002, the petitioner was
informed that his representation dated 18.12.2001 was examined
and it was found that there was no merit in his case.
The petitioner states that he performed his regular duties till
07.02.2002, and only on and from 08.02.2002, he was stopped
from working, but, for the period from November, 2001 till
07.02.2002, during the period he worked, he was not paid anything
W.P.(S) NO.2340 OF 2002
4
towards salary allowances etc. It is contended on behalf of the
petitioner that there was no material before the respondents to
record his date of birth as 01.11.1941. As a matter of fact, his date
of birth was 21.08.1942 as per the matriculation certificate. It is
further contended that before entering into the service of the
respondents, the petitioner had already passed matriculation
examination in the year 1959, and his matriculation certificate
establishes conclusively that his date of birth is 21.08.1942,
therefore, when the respondents got his certificate verified from
the Bihar School Examination Board, then in all fairness, his date of
birth ought to have been recorded in his service sheet. It is further
contended that the impugned Annexures -6 & 7, by which the
petitioner was informed that his representation as well as his
request for correction of date of birth has been rejected, but no
reason has been assigned for such rejection and the order passed
are not speaking orders.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
respondents, wherein it is stated that as per the entry in the
company’s record the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded
as 01.11.1941, accordingly, the petitioner has retired from service
on 31.10.2001. After his retirement, he has also received all the
retiral dues including gratuity, arrears of salary, etc. It is further
stated in the counter affidavit by the respondents that in the form
‘B’ Register maintained by the C.C.L. as well as in P.S.-1, P.S.-3 and
P.S.-4 forms contain the signature of the petitioner also show that
the date of birth of the petitioner was entered in those records as
01.11.1941, and therefore, in view of these facts, the claim of the
petitioner for correction of the date of birth was not entertainable
therefore the same has been rejected. About the matriculation
certificate of the petitioner, it is stated by the respondents in their
W.P.(S) NO.2340 OF 2002
5
counter affidavit that the said certificate was neither issued prior to
the date of appointment of the petitioner nor it was brought to the
notice of the respondent-company at the time of employment or
even immediately thereafter, and therefore, on the said basis his
date of birth as 21.08.1942 cannot be accepted since if that date of
birth of the petitioner is accepted, then in that event, he would be
below 18 years of age on the date he entered into the employment
of C.C.L. i.e. on 25.11.1959. As per the company’s records, the
petitioner was an adult on the date of appointment, and therefore,
his date of birth was correctly recorded in the relevant records of
the company. In support of the statements made in the counter
affidavit, the copies of service sheet, menial service register, form,
P.S.-1, P.S.-3 and P.S.-4 have been annexed in order to show that
the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 01.11.1941.
It is not disputed that the service sheet i.e. Annexure-1 was
supplied to the petitioner on 29.7.1987 showing his date of birth as
01.11.1941, I find that on the back of the Annexure-1 i.e. the
service sheet, the petitioner did make endorsement that his date of
birth was wrongly recorded which should be corrected. The said
endorsement was made on that very date itself i.e. on 29.7.1987,
the date on which the service sheet was supplied to the petitioner,
therefore, it appears that the petitioner immediately objected about
the wrong recording of his date of birth. From the matriculation
certificate (Annexure-5) as well as the letter dated 29.09.2001
(Annexure-4) sent by the Bihar School Examination Board to the
Office of the Chief General Manager, C.C.L., it appears that on
verification it was found that as per the records maintained in the
Examination Board his date of birth was 21.08.1942. It was also
certified that he passed matriculation examination in third division
in the Annual Examination of 1959.
W.P.(S) NO.2340 OF 2002
6
It is also not disputed that the petitioner was already a
matriculate even prior to his appointment in C.C.L. So far the form
P.S.-1, P.S.-3 and P.S.-4 which have been heavily relied upon by
the counsel for the respondents to show that the date of birth of
the petitioner was recorded as 01.11.1941, I find that these forms
were filled up in the year 1998 i.e. much after the objection raised
by the petitioner about wrong recording of his date of birth. It
further transpires from the aforesaid three forms i.e. P.S.-1, P.S.-3
and P.S.-4 and that there is cutting and over-writings in the year
of the birth of the petitioner recorded in those records. Therefore,
the recording of the date of birth in those forms i.e. P.S.-1, P.S.-3
and P.S.-4 do not inspire confidence. The matriculation certificate is
a most authenticated document for the date of birth of a person,
therefore, I am inclined to accept the entry made in the
Matriculation Certificate about the date of birth of the petitioner in
place of relying on the entries made in the records of the
respondent company which raise suspicion also about it.
There are several decisions of this Court including that of the
Division Bench wherein it has been held that Matriculation
Certificate is the conclusive proof to establish the date of birth.
Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of this Court
in case of Management of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd.,
Ranchi Versus Mrs. Sarita Narayan & Ors. reported in 2003 (4)
J.C.R. 602 (D.B.); Ramjanam Ram Versus M/s Bharat Coking Coal
Ltd., Dhanbad & Ors reported in 2002 (2) J.C.R. 48; M/s Bharat
Coking Coal Ltd. Versus Dwarika Dusadh @ Dwarika Ram reported
in 2006 (1) J.C.R. 297; and (Mrs.) Sarita Narayan Versus H.E.C.,
through the Chairman-cum-Managing Director Headquarter & Ors.
reported in 2003 (2) J.C.R. 663.
W.P.(S) NO.2340 OF 2002
7
On consideration of the facts and circumstances stated
above, I am of the view that the date of birth of the petitioner was
21.08.1942 and the same was wrongly recorded in the service
sheet and other relevant records of the company as 01.11.1941,
and he has wrongly been made to retire prematurely from
31.10.2001. In fact, he was entitled to continue in service till
31.08.2002, the date on which he would have superannuated on
completion of the age of 60 years.
Accordingly, this writ application is allowed, and the order as
contained in Annexure-6 & 7 rejecting the representation of the
petitioner for correction of the date of birth, are, hereby, quashed,
and the respondents are directed to make necessary correction
regarding the date of birth of the petitioner in their service records
as 21.08.1942 in place of 01.11.1941. Since the petitioner has now
reached the age of superannuation on 31.08.2002 itself, therefore,
the question for direction to take him in service again does not
arise. However, since he was prematurely retired from service, and
therefore, the respondents are directed to pay him all the
consequential benefit treating him to be in service till 31.08.2002.
The respondent-C.C.L. is directed to pass a consequential order
within a period of 8(eight) weeks from today. Since the petitioner
was forced to retire prematurely and has been forced to go for
litigation by the respondents, and therefore, this writ application is
allowed with a cost of Rs.5000/- (five thousand) to be paid to the
petitioner within the aforesaid period.
(AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J.)
Jharkhand High Court,
Ranchi. Dated :08.12.2009
N.A.F.R./S.I