LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 419 of 2005.
...
Against the Order dated 19.4.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P. (S.) No. 6136 of 2004.
...
1. Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi
2. General Manager (Personnel & Administration)
Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi
3. General Manager, Central Coalfield Limited,
Piparwar Area, Chatra
4. The Staff Officer (Personnel & Administration)
Central Coalfields Limited,
Piparwar Area, Chatra ... ... ... ... ... Appellants
Versus
Ram Sumer Singh ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Respondent
...
For the Appellants : M/s. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Rupesh Singh &
Pramod Kumar Choudhary, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. V. N. Jha, Advocate.
...
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. K. MERATHIA
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. G. R. PATNAIK
...
R.K.MERATHIA, &
D.G.R.PATNAIK, JJ. This intra court appeal has been filed by the appellant-
Management against the order dated 19.4.2005 passed in the writ
petition- W.P. (S.) No. 6136 of 2004 whereby the learned Single Judge
quashed the superannuation notice dated 22.9.2004 issued to the
respondent- writ petitioner-workman informing him that he will be
treated to have retired on superannuation from service of the company
with effect from 29.2.2000 under Clause-12.8.0 of N.C.W.A.-VI and all
terminal benefits will be calculated and paid to him treating the above
retirement date.
2. Learned counsel for the management submitted that the impugned
judgment is contrary to the records; that the date of birth was
manipulated in the service records; that there is no verification by the
2
competent authority, attached to the cutting and change in the date of
birth in the service records; and that when such manipulation was
detected, show cause notices were issued to the workman. He further
pointed out that the year of birth initially written in the service record
was '1939', which matches with the age declared by the workman as 29
years in the year 1969 i.e., 1940 as would appear from the medical slip;
that the workman put his signature on the medical slip; and that as such
declaration of age by the workman was accepted, there was no occasion
for the management to send the workman to the medical board.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the workman supported the
impugned order. He submitted that the workman was appointed on
2.1.1963
. As per the cross list of Annual Secondary School Examination,
1962, his date of birth is “6.7.1946”and the same was recorded in the
service records of the workman and was carried in other records also
which could not be changed by the management at the fag end of service.
The petitioner was to retire on 31.7.2006, but the said notice of
superannuation was issued to him wrongly and that too without issuing
any show cause notice to him.
4. After hearing the parties, we are satisfied that the impugned order
cannot be upheld for the following reasons. Firstly, in the counter
affidavit filed by the management in the writ petition, the following
statements were made in the paragraph 13 and 14 :-
“13. That it is stated that twice show cause notices were sent
to the petitioner vide no. 11/73-77 and 13/63-66 dated 29.6.2004
and 7.7.2004 respectively, seeking explanation as regards cutting
and overwriting on the service-sheet as well as considered the
age mentioned in the medical report conducted in the year 1969
taking it to be true and correct, but the petitioner has never
responded to the same.
14. That further, the petitioner was asked vide letter no. 2702
dated 9.9.2004 to produce his matriculation certificate being
possess by him to which he also did not respond.”
But, in the rejoinder to the said counter affidavit, the workman did
not deny the said statements. Thus, in our opinion, the finding of learned
Single Judge that no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was
given to the workman before issuing the impugned notice of
superannuation, is contrary to the pleadings and therefore, the same
cannot be upheld.
3
Secondly, the original service records of the workman were
perused by the learned Single Judge and by us also. It is clear therefrom
that the entry of date of birth was penned through and then
“6.7.1946”was written with different pen and ink. There is no verification
of such cutting by a competent officer. Thus, the case of the management
that there was manipulation in the date of birth, cannot be brushed aside
totally. This aspect of the matter has also not been taken into
consideration by the learned Single Judge.
5. Moreover, it is clear that there is serious dispute between the
parties with regard to the age/date of birth and such disputed questions
of fact cannot be decided in the writ petition and the proper forum is a
civil suit/industrial dispute.
6. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated
19.4.2005 is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is
made clear that the management will not recover the salary drawn by the
workman for the period he over worked between the date of his
superannuation i.e., 29.2.2000 till September 2004. No costs.
(R. K. Merathia, J)
(D. G. R. Patnaik, J)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated, 20th day of January 2009.
Ravi Shekhar/N.A.F.R.