JUDGMENT
Permod Kohli, J.
1. Petitioner an employee of the Respondent No. 1-Company has raised the dispute about the date of birth. According to the petitioner at the time of his appointment as Pay-Loader Operator in the year 1971, he was issued Identity Card, whereunder his date of birth is recorded as 01.07.1951. The same date of birth was reflected in the Matriculation Certificate as also the ‘Seva Abhilekh’ (record of the Company). He has further relied upon the National Coal Wage Agreement III dated 25th of April, 1988. Instruction No. 76 of this bilateral agreement between the Company and the Unions deals with the procedure for determination/verification of age of employee which reads as under:
(A) Determination of the age of the employee at the time of appointment.
(i) Matriculates.
In the case of appointees, who have passed Matriculation or equivalent examinations the date of birth recorded in the said certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances.
(B) Review determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees:
(i) (a) In the case of the existing employees Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the recognized Universities or Board or Middle pass Certificate issued by Board of Education and/or Department of Public Instruction and admit cards issued by the aforesaid Bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said Universities/Board/Institutions prior to the date of employment.
2. Respondents have, however, disputed the date of birth recorded in matriculation certificate and insisted on the date of birth as recorded in the Form B Register, which is said to be statutory one.
3. At the time of hearing two judgments passed by two Hon’ble Division Benches of this Court have been brought to my notice. A dispute arose with regard to the actual date of birth of an employee of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited, which is also the Respondent-Company in the present case. The employee relied upon the Matriculation Certificate. The Company sought verification of the Matriculation Certificate of the Employee from the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. The said Board certified the genuineness of the Matriculation Certificate produced by the petitioner. Thereafter the employee was asked to appear for Medical Examination. The employee claims that having no option, he appeared before the Medical Board as he was sought to be retired prematurely. The Medical Board submitted its Medical Report determining the age of the employee. Aggrieved of the Medical Report, the employee, namely, Awadh Singh approached this Court. This writ petition was dismissed. In the appeal preferred by him, a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir, the then Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.K. Merathia in the case of Awadh Singh v. The Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Ors. Reported in 2005 (2) J.C.R. 474 (Jhr.), held as under:
9. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and we are unable to convince ourselves that the respondents acted bonafide in asking the writ petitioner/appellant to appear before a medical Board, when the matter had been decided earlier and a settlement had been arrived at between the parties that the age of the writ petitioner/appellant would be recorded in terms of his matriculation certificate upon proper verification. Admittedly, the certificate was duly verified from the Bihar School Examination Board and there could have been no further doubt in the matter and having particular regard to the Instruction No. 76, the respondents should have accepted the petitioner’s age in terms of the matriculation certificate. It cannot be ruled out that the petitioner/appellant had no option but to subject himself to the medical examination by the Apex Medical Board, once he had been served with the notice of retirement.
10. In such circumstances we are unable to uphold the decision of the learned Single Judge and the same is, accordingly set aside. The respondents rate directed to correct the writ petitioner’s age in their records in terms of the matriculation certificate of the petitioner/appellant within one month from date.
4. In another case in Bipin Bihari Singh v. Central Coal Coalfields Limited and Ors. L.P.A. No. 50 of 2006 decided on 15th of July, 2006 a dispute arose regarding the date of birth of the employee, who claimed that he was matriculate having passed Matriculation in the year 1963. It was stated that the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board, i.e. 06th of January, 1949 was conveyed by him at the time of his appointment with the Respondent-Company in the year 1971. However, he was sought to be retired on the basis of the date of birth shown as 06.01.1946. The employer-Company, however, relied upon the date of birth recorded in the Form ‘B’ Register, which was 06.01.1946. A writ petition came to be dismissed and in the Appeal preferred by the employee a Division Bench of this Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Singh made the following observations:
There is no doubt that matriculation certificate is an authenticatic document for the purpose of verifying the qualification of the candidate. Matriculation certificate is also a reliable piece of evidence for the purpose of ascertaining and verifying the date of birth of the candidate. But, at the same time the date of birth entered into the Form-B Register is also the conclusive evidence with regard to date of birth of the appellant was recorded as 6.1.1949 in the matriculation certificate, but at the time of appointment in 1971, his date of birth was recorded in Form-B Register as 6.1.1946 which was acknowledged by the appellant by putting his signature. Not only that, in the seniority list issued by the respondents in the year 1999 the date of birth of the appellant, was shown as 6.1.946 which was acknowledged by the appellant by pulling his signature. Not only that, in the seniority list issued by the respondents in the year 1999 the date of birth of the appellant, was shown as 6.1.1946. It further appears that when the appellant available L.T.C. in the year 2005, in L.T.C. Form-A filled up by the appellant he showed his age as 59.8. years. This L.T.C. Form-A was also signed by the appellant. In this way, notwithstanding the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate, the appellant, since the beginning, accepted and acknowledged his date of birth as 6.1.1946. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the matriculation certificate will not prevail upon the documents admitted and acknowledged by the appellant wherein his date of birth was shown as 6.1.1946. In our view, therefore, the learned Single Judge has not erred in law in dismissing the writ petition.
5. In view of the conflicting observations by two Hon’ble Division Benches of this Court in the aforesaid two judgments and considering the fact that in both the cases, the mutual relationship between the employer and employee were governed by N.C.W.A., it is deemed appropriate that controversy be resolved by a larger Bench. I, accordingly, refer the following question of law for consideration of the larger Bench in terms of Rule 93 of High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001:
Whether the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate duly authenticated should be considered as the conclusive proof of age or the age determined by the Medical Board and other service record?
6. Let this file be placed before Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice for constitution of an appropriate larger (Full Bench) Bench for consideration of the aforementioned question of law.