Godnath Mahto Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. and Ors - Court Judgment

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 6870 of 2007 Godnath Mahto, Son of Late Madho Mahto, Resident of Village-Balsagra, P.O. Balsagra, P.S. Mandu, District-Hazaribagh. ....... Petitioner Versus 1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Managing Director, Darbhanga House, Ranchi. 2.The Director Personnel, Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi. 3.The Project Officer, Topa Colliery, Topa Project, Central Coalfields Limited, Mandu, District-Hazaribagh. 4.The General Manager, Topa Project, Central Coalfields Limited, Mandu, District-Hazaribagh. ….... Respondents --- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK --- For the Petitioners : Mr.Gautam Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Respondents : Mrs. Ranjana Mukherjee, Adv. ……. CAV on 01/11/2017 Pronounced on 10/01 /2018 Per Pramath Patnaik, J.

In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 02.08.2007 vide Annexure-3 and letter dated 19.09.2007 vide Annexure-4, whereby the date of birth has been corrected and changed as per the CMPF record from 20.04.1952 to 01.02.1948 and the petitioner has also prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service under respondent authority according to the date of birth dated 20.04.1952.

2. The brief facts, leading to filing of the writ application, is that petitioner was appointed on 05.04.1973 and thereafter service book of the petitioner was opened wherein the date of birth stood recorded as 20.04.1952. In the said service excerpts, petitioner’s thumb impression finds place so also the signature of the competent authority. When the petitioner was orally communicated about impending date of retirement on 30.01.2008, the petitioner immediately submitted representation on 21.08.2007 putting forth his grievance vide Annexure-2 to the writ application. While the representation was pending for consideration, the Senior Personnel Officer, Topa Colliery informed the petitioner that one task force committee has verified the date of birth and got its corrected as per the C.M.P.F record and accordingly, the date of birth of the petitioner has been changed from 2 20.04.1952 to 01.02.1948 which is evident from letter dated 02.08.2007 as per Annexure-3. Thereafter, the petitioner has been served with notice dated 19.09.2007 about his superannuation on 31.01.2008 considering his date of birth as 01.02.1948 as evident from Annexure-4 to the writ application. It has been averred in the writ application that the respondents on their own have made cutting, the original date of birth of the petitioner in the service excerpts and has changed the same as 01.02.1948 which is quite apparent from Annexure-5 and that too the change of the date of birth has been made without notice and unilateral change has been made at the fag end of the service of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed detailed representation vide Annexure-6 to the writ application, which did not evoke any response from the respondent authorities. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned orders vide Annexures-3 and 4, the petitioner left with no alternative, have knocked the door of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned orders vide Annexures-3 and 4 is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the date of birth recorded in the service excerpts, which is the authentic document, the petitioner was supposed to continue in service till 30.04.2012 but the respondents by their unilateral action have changed the date of birth at the fag end of the service career without issuing any notice to the petitioner, which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

4. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the counter affidavit it has been stated and submitted that the pay slip issued to the workers every month bears the date of birth and at no point of time the petitioner objected it. In fact, it is the petitioner who raised the issue at the fag end of the service career. Moreover, the petitioner has been handed over the gratuity cheque on 04.02.2008 which was accepted by him without any protest, which in a way implies that the concerned workman is in agreement with the date of birth recorded in different service records as per Annexure-A to the said affidavit. It has further been submitted that a task force was constituted and the said task force visited all the areas of the respondent company. It is stated that on 3 its visit to Kuju area and the concerned Colliery unit, the task force after due examination had corrected the date of birth of lot of the employees. It has further been submitted that the computerized service particulars of employees known as NEIS so maintained and updated by the company from time to time also bears his date of birth as 01.02.1948 as per Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. It has further been submitted that petitioner had never submitted School Leaving Certificate earlier. Had it been submitted at the time of initial appointment, the claimed date of birth would have been recorded and no problem would have arisen. Moreover, when on the subsequent occasion, i.e. in the year 1987 when service excerpts were made available to all employees, the petitioner did not raise the question or submitted any such purported certificate raising any such issue. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is nothing but an afterthought to make out a case by adopting unfair means and manufactured documents. It is settled law that no change of date of birth is permissible at the fag end of service of an employee. So far as School Leaving Certificate is concerned, it has been submitted that Unit Personnel Officer had visited the said school and on verification, has not found the name of the petitioner in the admission register of 1968 as per certificate dated 23.02.2008 vide Annexure-C to the said affidavit. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the petitioner is not entitled to any equitable relief.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents apart from reiterating the submission made in the counter affidavit, vociferously submitted that at the fag end of the service career, date of birth dispute is not to be entertained and therefore, the writ petition ought to be dismissed in limine, being devoid of any merit.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the records, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders, due to the following facts and reasons: (I) It is settled position of law that the date of birth dispute cannot be entertained at the fag end of the service career, therefore, this Court cannot exercise extraordinary jurisdiction for alteration or correction of date of birth, when the petitioner being cognizant of the date of birth, chose not to challenge the same at the relevant point of time and again rose from the deep slumber to stake claim for correction of date of birth. In the instant case, as has been disclosed from Annexure-B series, the date of birth has been 4 recorded as 01.02.1948 and the petitioner was well aware of the said fact. Due to delay, laches and acquiescence no equitable relief can be claimed by the petitioner, who had chosen to sleep over his rights, therefore, on that score the writ petition is not entertainable. The Hon’ble Apex Court in cases of Union of India vs. Harnam Singh reported in (1993) 2 SCC162 Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Others vs. Dinabandhu Majumdar & Another reported in (1995) 4 SCC172 State of Maharashtra & Another vs Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble & Ors. reported in (2010) 14 SCC423and State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Premlal Shrivas reported in (2011) 9 SCC664have been pleased to consistently hold that the Court should be loath to issue direction for correction of date of birth at the fag end of the service career. (II) Apart from the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court pertaining to correction of date of birth at the fag end of the service career, the facts which have emerged in this writ application is that, the date of birth as recorded in computerized service particulars of employees known as NEIS which has been maintained and updated by the company from time to time also bears his date of birth as 01.02.1948. The said date of birth was made known to the petitioner in the year 1987 and the petitioner accepted the same without any demur till the fag end of his service career. In that view of the matter the relief sought for by the petitioner is not to be entertained in exercise of judicial review.

7. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements there can be no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders vide Annexures- 3 and 4, and hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. (Pramath Patnaik, J.) Saket/-