Full Judgment
THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(S) No. 871 of 2017 Tapan Kumar, S/o Late Baidya Nath Mitra … Petitioner 1. B.C.C.L (Bharat Coking Caol Ltd) through Chief Managing Director 2. Director, Personnel, BCCL.
3. General Manager (P &IR) BCCL, Dhanbad 4. Chief Personnel Manager, Administration Department, BCCL, Dhanbad … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK For Petitioner : Mr. Prabash Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. A.K. Mehta, Advocate ------ 05/ 08.08.2017 The petitioner has approached this Court for challenging the Annexure 11 dated 26.08.2016 on the ground that respondents have assessed the age of the petitioner on 08.11.1996 as 42 years and the date of birth is recorded as 08.11.1954, whereas the date of birth is claimed by the petitioner is 22.10.1964. Factual Matrix The petitioner was working as General Mazdoor in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (BCCL), after being appointed as such by letter dated 30/31.10.1996, issued by the Chief Personnel Manager (MP &R), BCCL. The verification roll was submitted by the petitioner on 23.12.1996, wherein, the date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 20.10.1964, which was based on the transfer certificate issued by the Headmaster, Industry Middle School, Jharia, where the petitioner was studying in Class-VII, according to which, the date of birth of the petitioner as entered in the school record was 20.10.1964. The grievances of the petitioner is that on 14/22.07.2014, the impugned letter was issued by the Chief Manager, BCCL, whereby, he was informed that he shall be completing his age of 60 years on 07.11.2014 and accordingly, he was to superannuate from service on 30.11.2014. However, a letter dated 30.01.1998 issued by the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, P.B. Area, has been brought on record as Annex. 4 to the writ petition, whereby, it was informed that the appointee (i.e. petitioner) had been assessed 42 years of age by the Medical Board, whereas in the verification roll, the age of the petitioner has been shows as 32 years. It was also stated that the relevant original papers/documents had not been sent and the approval of appointment was also not enclosed. Accordingly, the Chief Personnel Manager (MP & R) was requested for further needful action and further advice in the matter. The said letter was replied by the Chief Manager (MP & R) by letter dated 6/9.2.1998, whereby the Chief Personnel Manager expressed surprise to the contents of the letter as contained in Annex.
4. It was informed that the petitioner was taken into employment after passing of an Award as well as settlement and if it was found that certain documents were urgently required to allow the workman, they should have immediately been collected from the respective office, which was not done. The petitioner has approached earlier in W.P.(S). No. 5969 of 2014, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.07.2016 with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, by speaking order within a period of four months from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order. After considering each and every aspect of the matter, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 26.08.2016. Hence, this writ petition has been preferred. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary on the ground that the directions of this Hon'ble Court passed in W.P.(S) No. 5969 of 2014, were not considered by the respondents. The stand of the respondents that speaking order has been passed in view of the earlier order passed by this Hon'ble Court, is not tenable in the eyes of law. It is the specific case that the petitioner was not aware of the fact that his age has been assessed by the Medical Board as 42 years on 08.11.1996 at the time of his entry into the service. Learned counsel further submits that there is a difference of 10 years in the age assessed by the Medical Board and the age claimed by the petitioner. Learned counsel strenuously urges that he is aware of the fact in view of the settled principles of law no correction can be permitted at the fag end of service but in this case corrections in the date-of-birth had been made at the fag end of service by the respondents. The petitioner is claiming correction regarding date-of-birth right from the year 1998, the respondents have not considered the claim of the petitioner till date and as such, the order dated 26.08.2016 is not tenable in the eyes of law and is fit to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that after retirement, case of the petitioner cannot be considered for correction in the date-of-birth. The petitioner was aware that the date-of-birth assessed by the Medical Board itself in the year 1996 and the same was never challenged. The date-of-birth of the petitioner find place in each and every documents in the BCCL. Even in the LTC granted to the petitioner, the same date-of-birth 08.11.1954 has been reflected, which was never challenged by the petitioner and as such, no correction has been made in view of the settled principles of law and judicial pronouncements. Be that as it may, having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. The respondents have assessed the age of the petitioner by sending it to the Medical Board on 08.11.1996 as 42 years and the date of birth is recorded as 08.11.1954 . No document has been produced on record, neither in the earlier writ petition nor in the present writ petition to show that the petitioner was aware of the said assessment by the Medical Board. Even, the report of Medical Board has not been produced either before the earlier Court or before this Court and counter-affidavit has also not been filed. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is not acceptable to this Court. It is a settled principles of law that no correction can be done at the fag end of service of the employee. The same theory will be applicable for the employees as well as for the employers. The respondents should also not to make any correction in the Date-of-birth, if the same was not communicated to the petitioner. However, in present circumstances of the case, the date-of-birth assessed by the Medical Board is 08.11.1954 and on 08.11.1996 the age of the petitioner was assessed as 42 years, whereas, the date-of-birth as claimed by the petitioner, which is mentioned in the verification roll, is 20.10.1964. There is a difference of 10 years, which requires re-assessment by a proper Medical Board i.e. Apex Medical Board. In view of the circumstances, I am remanding the matter back to the BCCL for constitution of an Apex Medical Board and upon such constitution, let the age of the petitioner be reassessed by the Apex Medical Board within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Resultantly, the impugned order date 26.08.2016 (Annexure
11) is quashed and set aside. If the age of the petitioner is found to be nearer to 20.10.1964, the petitioner is entitled for all the consequential benefits. Needless to say that the petitioner has already retired from services, he will not be reinstated into services but he will be entitled for all the monitory benefits only. If the age of the petitioner is found nearer to 08.11.1954, no interference is required in the age as assessed by the respondents. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) punit