JUDGMENT
Amareshwar Sahay, J.
1. In the Instant writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of Annexure-5 to the writ application issued under the signature of Respondent No. .2 dated 9.3.1996 whereby the petitioner was informed that he would stand retired from the service of Bachra Project of Central Coal fields Ltd. with effect from 17.12.1996 (P.M.) and for a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service till June, 2010 on the basis of his actual date of birth i.e. 20.6.1950 after accepting his date of birth as recorded in his Service Book and C.M.P.F. record.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Loader on 20.6.1975 and was posted at Bachra Project of Central Coal fields Ltd. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Tyndal CAT-1V and is still continuing on the said post. According to the petitioner, at the time of his initial appointment, he declared his date of birth to be 20.6.1950 which was also recorded in his Service Book and further that the said date of his birth was also recorded in the record of Coal Mines Provident Fund. It is further stated that in the year 1986, the petitioner was forced to appear before the Age Assessment Committee constituted by the Management. According to the petitioner by an order dated 19/20.12.1987, a chargesheet was also issued against him and he was asked to show cause as to why he refused to put his signature on the record of the Age Determination Committee, but the said proceeding was ultimately dropped. The Age Assessment Committee submitted Its report dated 1.8.1986 whereby the age of the petitioner was determined to be 50 years on that day. The petitioner filed a representation challenging the said report of the Committee and he stated that his age was wrongly decided as he was only 42 years of age on that date. It is said that by issue of the notice dated 9.3.1996 contained in Annexure-5 he was informed that he would stand retired with effect from 17.12.1996 (F.N.)
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mrs. Pal has submitted that Annexure-5 was issued on the basis of the Medical Report of the Age Assessment Committee, which has no basis, as the report was without any proper medical examination and was not according to the medical Jurisprudence. She has further submitted that the date of birth recorded in the C.M.P.F. record as contained in Annexure-1 was an authentic document which should have been accepted by the ‘Respondents, but the Management illegally and arbitrarily changed the date of birth of the petitioner behind his back and has issued the notice as contained in Annexure-5 which is liable to the quashed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn my attention to Annexure-4 to the rejoinder of the counter affidavit which is a Circular dated 25.4.1998 issued by the Coal India Ltd., on the basis of National Coal wage Agreement III and has submitted that the determination of age of the petitioner by the Age Assessment Committee is not in confirmity with the procedure laid down in the said Circular of Coal India Ltd. dated 25.4.1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jiwan Kishore v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in AIR 1980 SC (2) 1251, and also the orders passed in CWJC No. 3629 of 1995 (R) dated 11.10.1996 and CWJC No. 3961 of 1994 (R) dated 11.8.1994 whereby the High Court directed for constitution of the Medical Board for reassessment of the age of the petitioner in those cases.
5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, their stand is that the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded in his Service sheet as 17.12.1936 and, therefore, by issue of Annexure-5, was perfectly valid and he has rightly been directed to superannuate with effect from 17.2.1996. The further case of the respondents is that since there was no mention of date of birth of the petitioner in his Service Book and, therefore to assess the age of the petitioner, an Age Assessment Committee was constituted before whom the petitioner so appeared on 21.7.1986, whereby he was found to be aged about 50 years but since the decision of the said Committee did not suit the petitioner, therefore, he declined to put his signature and then again before the second Age Determination Committee on 17.12.1987, by which he was found to be aged 51 years.
6. Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that admittedly when the petitioner came to know that his age has been assessed by the Age Assessment Committee to be 50 years and 51 years in the year 1986 and 1987 itself, but he did not choose to challenge the same and it is only after a lapse of about 10 years, he filed the present writ application when he received the notice of his superannuation as contained in Annexure-5 and, therefore, the present writ application is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
7. From the rival contention of the parties, it appears that there is a serious dispute with regard to the age and date of birth of the petitioner. From Annexures ‘B’ and ‘C’ to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it appears that twice the age of the petitioner was assessed by the Age Determination Committee i.e. firstly on 21.7.1986 and secondly on 17.12.1987. Annexure ‘B’ to the counter affidavit is the ‘report of Age Assessment Committee held on 21.7.1986. The said Committee consisted of the Deputy Chief Personal Manager as well as Medical Superintendent, Radiologist and the Project Officer whereas Annexure ‘C’ is the report of the Age Determination Committee held on 17.12.1987 in which the Area Medical Officer was one of the member of 3 men of the Age Determination Committee, therefore, I find that the procedure for assessing the age of the petitioner was properly followed by the respondents.
8. In a recent decision by the Apex Court in the case of G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, W.B. v. Shib Kumar Dushad and Ors. reported in AIR 2001 SC (1) 72, it has been held that in a case where the controversy over the date of birth of an employee has been raised long after the joining of the service and the matter has engaged the attention of the authority concerned and has been determined by following the procedure prescribed under the service rule or general instruction issued by the employer and it is not the case of the employee that there has been any aritluneticat mistake or typographical error obtained on the record. The High Court in his exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution should not interfere with the decision of the employer.
9. Therefore, in my view the case in hand is fully covered by the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court and as such relying on the said decision. I hold that the finding arrived at by the two Age Determination Committee one in 1986 and the other in. 1987, cannot be interfered with, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be decided in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as such the petitioner is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.
10. In the result, there is no merit in
this application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as
to cost.