Ramavtar Mochi Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) Through I.G. of Prison., Government of Jharkhand and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- constitution of india. articles 12 & 226: [m. karpaga vinayagam, c.j., narendra nath tiwari & d.p.singh, jj] writ petition - maintainability - whether state co-operative milk producers federation ltd., is a state within meaning of article 12 ? - held, from perusal of relevant rules of byelaws, it is clear that state government has no role to play either in policy decision for raising funds for federation or its expenditure and thus have no financial control. further there is nothing to indicate that government has any functional and administrative control over federation. state government has no role to play in matter of appointment of any of officials of federation including managing director. federation is totally independent in all respects and in no way subservient to state government in conduct of its business. federation in no way can be termed as agency of state government and does not come within meaning of article 12 of constitution. writ petitions against federation is not maintainable. .....on the judgment of a bench of patna high court in the case of baidyanath singh v. bccl and ors., reported in ilr 2000 (2) pat 30. in that case, the fact was that the date of birth of the petitioner was originally recorded in the service book as 3.1.1946 which was subsequently struck-off and in that place, thirty five years was entered. admittedly, this alteration or interpolation in the service book was made at the instance of the respondent employer behind the back of the petitioner. on these facts, the court held that superannuation on the basis of altering the age by the employer without giving notice to the employee was illegal.3. but in the instant case, it appears from the annexure-a of the counter affidavit in the writ petition that the age of the petitioner was mentioned as thirty years and figure 'three' was made 'two' and thus, thirty years was made twenty years. it is specific case of the respondent employer that the petitioner managed to get the age interpolated by making it twenty years from thirty years. having gone through annexure-a, it is evident that this interpolation was made at the instance of the employee.4. taking into consideration all these facts, we do.....

Judgment:

ORDER

1. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge refused to decide the issue with regard to the correction of date of birth. The actual issue was, when and how the age of the petitioner recorded in the service book as thirty years was managed to be interpolated and recorded as twenty years. The learned Single Judge has held that this is a matter to be adjudicated by the civil Court and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are also definitely of the view that such disputed question with regard to the date of birth of an employee cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant put reliance on the judgment of a Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Baidyanath Singh v. BCCL and Ors., reported in ILR 2000 (2) Pat 30. In that case, the fact was that the date of birth of the petitioner was originally recorded in the service book as 3.1.1946 which was subsequently struck-off and in that place, thirty five years was entered. Admittedly, this alteration or interpolation in the service book was made at the instance of the respondent employer behind the back of the petitioner. On these facts, the Court held that superannuation on the basis of altering the age by the employer without giving notice to the employee was illegal.

3. But in the instant case, it appears from the Annexure-A of the counter affidavit in the writ petition that the age of the petitioner was mentioned as thirty years and figure 'three' was made 'two' and thus, thirty years was made twenty years. It is specific case of the respondent employer that the petitioner managed to get the age interpolated by making it twenty years from thirty years. Having gone through Annexure-A, it is evident that this interpolation was made at the instance of the employee.

4. Taking into consideration all these facts, we do not find any error in the impugned judgment passed by the learned single Judge. This appeal is dismissed.