Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(S) No. 6256 of 2014 ---- Mohd. Jalil ... … Petitioner -Versus- 1.Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. 2.General Manager, P & A, BCCL, Dhanbad 3.General Manager, Sijua Area No.V, BCCL, Dhanbad 4.Project Officer, Sendra Basjora Colliery, BCCL, Dhanbad . ... ... Respondents ---- CORAM :HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH ---- For the Petitioner :Mr. Rohit Roy For the Respondents :M/s. Ananda Sen & Kaustav Panda ---- 04- 23.07.2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground on 02.09.1980 as Miner/Loader at Nichitpur, Colliery. According to him, the Medical Board assessed his age as 22 years in 1980 and same was recorded in Form B as well as in service excerpts. Petitioner has also affixed his thumb impression on such details in the service excerpts. However, on coming to know about tampering of his age on the record of the company, he has represented before the respondents on 09.01.2014. He also applied for necessary records pertaining to medical board conducted at the time of his appointment in Form B register of the Nichitpur Colliery and Form B at Sendra Basjora Colliery. They have not been provided and instead the superannuation notice dated 04.02.2015 has been issued, which is annexed as Annexure 5 to I.A no 3436/2015, where under it is indicated that he would reach the age of superannuation on 01.07.2015. The said office order, Annexure 5 is also sought to be challenged along with a prayer for correction of his date of birth in the official records. Petitioner in support of his date of birth, however, has not been able to produce any documents. A supplementary affidavit, which has been filed after the order dated 22.06.2015, also shows that in the identity card issued in June, 1985 his date of birth is shown as 25 years in 1980. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit relying upon Annexure A, which is 'Form B' prepared at Sendra Basjora Colliery, where he was transferred on 13.07.2000, which also shows his age as 30.06.1955. The document containing service particulars of the petitioner at Nichitpur Colliery, Annexure B, 2. signed by a number of officials of the respondent-Colliery, also shows his age as 25 years in 1980. Service excerpts, Annexure C shows his age as 25 years in 1980 after the entry 22 years on 1980 was cut. This was the basis for the petitioner to challenge such correction as it has been made behind his back. However, the service excerpts contains the initials of the concerned controlling authority of the management at both the places as also the thumb impression of the petitioner at the end. According to the respondents this correction was made in the conscious knowledge of the petitioner. Respondents, therefore, have pleaded that the dispute relating to date of birth is being raised at the fag end of service, which should not be entertained by this Court. In this connection, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble, reported in 2010 (14) SCC423and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Satish Kumar Mittal, reported in 2010 (9) SCC337 Learned counsel for the petitioner, in response, has submitted that Form B prepared at Nichitpur Colliery at the time of entry in service, has not been produced by the respondents, which could settle the matter. It is further his case that if date of birth is shown to have been changed in service excerpts prepared in 1987 behind the back of the petitioner, then the respondents should have referred the matter to the Apex Medical Board for making a fresh determination of his age in terms of Implementation Instruction 76. He has also relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Chhota Birsa Uraon, reported in 2014(12) SCC570in order to submit that interference was made in the said matter relating to the correction of date of birth of an employee of the same company when the dispute had remained unresolved on the part of the employer. I have considered the submissions of the parties in the light of the aforesaid factual matrix of the case and also the judgment relied upon by them. The records show that the petitioner was an illiterate and, therefore, no documents and particulars are shown to substantiate his contention that he was 22 years of age in 1980 at the time of entry in service. The ID card, which has 3. been produced by him itself shows that it was prepared on 15.06.1985 itself and shows his age as 25 years in 1980. Petitioner was ,therefore, conscious of his age even in the year 1985 but has chosen to rake up the issue at the fag end of the service. On the contrary, the respondents through documents enclosed to the counter affidavit have justified their stand to superannuate the petitioner w.e.f 01/07/2015 as his age was assessed as 25 years in 1980. Categorical statements have been made at para 12 of the counter affidavit that the Medical Board had assessed his age as 25 years on the date of his employment. It, therefore, appears that on the one hand the dispute of age is being raised by the petitioner at the fag end of service while there are no documents to show that the entry made relating to his age on the date of birth at the time of entry in service or thereafter, were not correct or not supported by any assessment by the Medical Board. These documents like ID card, service excerpts and Form B relate to the year 1985, 1987 and 2000 though the Form B of Nichitpur Colliery has not been brought on record. The judgment relied upon by the respondents, clearly lays down that such claim of correction of date of birth at the fag end of service should not be entertained by this Court. In the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Chhota Birsa Uraon (supra) relied upon by the petitioner it appears that the employer had at the time of recording service excerpts in 1987 itself, on being objected by the employee, made correction in other details relating to his father’s name, address etc. but had chosen not to make any correction in the age of the said employee, who had been persistently raising the dispute. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the plea of correction of age was not raised at the fag end of service by the said employee as it was only on account of fault of the employer the matter had remained lingering till the retirement of the said employee. The ratio of the said judgment does not apply to the factual matrix of the present case, where admittedly he has raised the dispute of age at the fag end of service though in his ID card issued in 1985 itself, his age was shown as 25 years in 1980.
4. Therefore, on the basis of discussions made herein above and the reasons recorded, this matter does not require any interference by this court. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. I.A. No 3436 of 2015 is also closed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.
) Pandey