Letters Patent Appeal No. 509 of 2009
----
An appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent
---
M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited through
the Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Dhanbad and another Appellants
Versus
Shakunti Devi Respondents
---
For the Appellants:Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Shailesh and Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, Advocates
---
Present
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prakash Tatia
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Merathia
---
JUDGEMENT
By Court: The petitioner / respondent's husband was an employee of
the BCCL and during his service time, he submitted an application for
correction of his date of birth for which there is a procedure already
provided by the appellant BCCL itself by constituting an Age
Determination Committee. The matter was pending before the Age
Determination Committee and the age of superannuation on the basis
of the recorded date of birth of the employee came and he was made
to retire with effect from 31st July 2004. It is relevant to mention here
that the Dy. Chief Personal Manager, Area-IX and the General
Manager, Area-IX being convinced of the genuineness of the claim of
the employee, had recommended the employee’s case for necessary
correction in the entry concerning his date of birth on 17th January
2005. The employee since dead, his wife preferred a writ petition
wherein after considering the facts in detail, the learned Single Judge
reached to the conclusion that the appellant / respondent should have
corrected the date of birth and since the employee has now died, the
respondent / writ petitioner is entitled to the monetary benefits.
2. It would have been a hard case if the employee himself
would not have pursued the remedy which was made available to him
by the employer / appellant themselves and there is a procedure for
correction of date of birth by constituting an Age Determination
Committee and because of the retirement of the employee, the right
of the employee was not lost.
3. The recommendation of the competent persons about the
correction in the age recorded in the service book of employee is also
relevant fact.
4. In the background of this case, we do not find any reason
to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single
Judge.
5. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant pointed
out that the employee’s son also preferred a writ petition for getting
compassionate appointment and that was dismissed by this Court.
According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the son of the
employee also preferred L.P.A. and the son could not get the
compassionate appointment only because of the reasons that without
correction in the date of birth, enhancing the period of service of the
employee beyond his date of death, he could not have become
entitled to the compassionate appointment and therefore, he suffered
because of that being not corrected in time.
6. Be that as it may, we are not concerned with that. We are
only concerned with the impugned order and therefore, we are of the
considered opinion that nothing wrong has been committed by the
learned Single Judge in allowing the benefit to the respondent /
petitioner. The appeal has no force and hence dismissed.
(Prakash Tatia, J)
(R.K. Merathia, J)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated 05th May 2011
Mukund/Ranjeet/