Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3023 of 2014 Bijay Paswan @ Vijay Paswan son of late Chandeshwar Paswan, resident of loyabad Coke Plant, P.O. Bansjora, P.S. Putki, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. . ......... Petitioner. Versus 1. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, having its office at Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. & District- Dhanbad 2. General Manager, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. & District- Dhanbad.
3. Chief Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. & District- Dhanbad.
4. Project Officer, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Loyabad Coke Plant, P.O. Bansjora, P.S. Putki, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. … Respondents. ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN. ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate. For Respondent- BCCL : Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Advocate ------ 05/07.09.2017: In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the superannuation notice dated 17.5.2014, by which, he has been informed that on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years, he will superannuate with effect from 1.7.2014.
2. The petitioner is claiming that his actual date of birth is 21.1.1958 thus he could not be superannuated with effect from 1.7.2014. In support of his claim, the petitioner has referred to and relied upon his Matriculation Certificate in which, his date of birth has been mentioned as 21.1.1958. The petitioner further claims that when he entered in his service, sometime in the year 1986, he furnished his matriculation certificate, but inspite of furnishing the said certificate, wrong date of birth has been recorded by the respondent authorities in the official records, which has not been corrected by the respondent authorities. It is lastly submitted that the date of birth of the petitioner may be corrected as 21.1.1958, as recorded in his Matriculation Certificate, obtained prior to entry in his service.
3. The counsel appearing on behalf of BCCL submits that the petitioner, at the time of entry in his service, has not produced matriculation certificate and thus he was medically examined by the Board and his age was assessed as 32 years and his date of birth was recorded as 20.6.1954, which is apparent from Annexure-4 to the writ petition. He further submits that the service excerpt was handed over to the petitioner sometime in the year 1987 in which, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 20.6.1954. The petitioner never objected the said entry. He further submits that the educational qualification column of the service excerpt has been kept blank which shows that the matriculation certificate was not produced by the petitioner. He also submits that the service excerpt containing the date of birth of the petitioner as 20.6.1954 has been duly authenticated by the petitioner by putting his signature, in Form -B Register. Form-B register has been brought on record with the counter affidavit. Counsel for the BCCL further submits that at the fag end of service career and only after receiving the superannuation notice, the petitioner has raised the dispute in respect of his date of birth. When the recording of the date of birth as 20.6.1954 was within his knowledge at least from 1987, therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. After hearing the parties and going through the record, I find that in the service excerpt, the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 20.6.1954, which was derived after the petitioner was medically examined and his age was assessed. In Form B, which is a statutory Register, the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 20.6.1954 and the same has been duly acknowledged and signed by the petitioner, which shows that the petitioner did not object such entry made in respect of his date of birth. It also transpires that the educational column of the service excerpt of the petitioner has been kept blank, which suggests that the petitioner has not produced his matriculation certificate at the time of entry in his service and therefore, there is no good reason as to why, the date of birth of the petitioner as mentioned in the matriculation certificate would not be recorded, if the certificate was produced by him. Thus the submission advanced by the counsel appearing for BCCL finds force that the matriculation certificate was not at all produced at the time of entry of the petitioner in his service. That being the reason, the petitioner was medically examined and his age was assessed. The Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 327 of 2006 (Ram Payare Singh Vs. BCCL and Ors.), in the similar facts and circumstances as of this case in paragraph 9 and 10 has held as under;
“9. The facts of the case is not applicable in the present case as in the said case there was no entry made regarding date of birth in Form-B but in the case at heard there is specific entity in Form-B mentioning the date of birth and the said Form-B has been signed by the appellant-petitioner; that the said entry shows his date of birth as 01.01.1946. Accordingly, the said decision runs counter to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant.
10. It is held that Form-B, which was prepared at the time of joining of the appellant, it is a statutory document and record of service and has been duly signed and authenticated by the appellant. Thus there is no plausible explanation as to why he had not produced the matriculation certificate at the time of appointment, which was in his possession as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is evident that he raised his grievance at the fag end of his service.”
5. Thus, I have no hesitation to hold that the date of birth of the petitioner cannot be corrected at the fag end of his service career that too after receipt of superannuation notice. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Anu/- (ANANDA SEN, J.)