Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
I.P. Mukerji, Subhasis Dasgupta, JJ.
Pranab Kumar Layek - Appellant
Versus
Eastern Coalfields Limited & Ors. - Respondents
F.M.A. (First Miscellaneous Appeal) No. 4415 of 2016
Decided On : 12-02-2021
Age Dispute - Employment - Implementation Instruction No. 76 - [Matriculates - Determination of the age at the time of appointment - Rules governing the determination or verification of age of the employees of the respondent] - The court discussed the rules governing the determination or verification of age of the employees of the respondent, particularly Implementation Instruction No. 76, which stated that the date of birth recorded in the school leaving certificate would be treated as correct date of birth and would not be altered under any circumstances. The court emphasized the importance of the date of birth as recorded in the school leaving certificate and highlighted that the respondent is bound by its own rules. The court set aside the impugned decision of the respondent and directed the respondent to record the date of birth of the appellant as 25th October, 1959, annulling the decision of superannuating the appellant and entitling him to salary and retiral benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant joined the service of the respondent in 1977 and a dispute regarding his age arose almost 10 years later. The respondent raised objections to the appellant's age and directed him to appear before the Medical Board for determination of his date of birth. The court discussed the dispute over the appellant's date of birth and the subsequent legal proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's decision based on the Medical Board's assessment was incorrect and emphasized the importance of the date of birth recorded in the school leaving certificate. The court set aside the impugned decision of the respondent and directed the respondent to record the date of birth of the appellant as 25th October, 1959, annulling the decision of superannuating the appellant and entitling him to salary and retiral benefits.
Issues: The main issue was whether the decision made by the respondent regarding the appellant's date of birth was correct or not, and whether the respondent followed the rules governing the determination or verification of age of the employees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the date of birth as recorded in the school leaving certificate and highlighted that the respondent is bound by its own rules, particularly Implementation Instruction No. 76. The court set aside the impugned decision of the respondent and directed the respondent to record the date of birth of the appellant as 25th October, 1959, annulling the decision of superannuating the appellant and entitling him to salary and retiral benefits.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the court directed the respondent to record the date of birth of the appellant as 25th October, 1959, annulling the decision of superannuating the appellant and entitling him to salary and retiral benefits.
JUDGMENT
I. P. Mukerji, J. - The appellant joined the service of the first respondent, Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (the respondent) on 14th October, 1977 as a trainee. On 21st November, 1979 he was appointed in the post on probation for six months.
2. He had secondary level school qualification having obtained it in 1978.
3. Almost 10 years after his appointment in service the respondent raised a dispute regarding the appellant's age. They did not accept the age as shown in the admit card of the West Bengal Secondary Board. By its letter dated 19th June, 1989 they communicated this to the appellant.
4. By a letter dated 25th August, 1992 they directed the appellant to appear before the Apex Medical Board at the Regional Hospital Pantanagar, Pandaveswar area on 27th August, 1992 at 9.00 A.M with his identity card, a photocopy of the service excerpt along with a duly attested passport size photograph for the purpose of determination of his date of birth.
5. The Medical Board opined that the appellant would be between the age 40 to 45 as on 27th August, 1992 and determined his date of birth as 27th February, 1950.
6. Against its decision, the appellant filed a writ application in this court [WP 15396(W) of 2005] (Pranab Kumar Layek Vs. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors.). It was disposed of on 16th September, 2015 by directing the General Manager (Personnel) of the respondent to consider the representation to be made by him for age correction, within six weeks of such representation.
7. In pursuance of the said order of this court, the General Manager (P&IR) made his decision on 13th November, 2015 which is the impugned decision in the instant writ [WP 5572(W) of 2016].
8. On 11th April, 2016 this writ was dismissed at the motion stage by a learned single judge of this court.
9. The reasons advanced by the learned judge for dismissing the writ application were that in the identity card issued to the appellant in 1999, after assessment of his age by the Medical Board, his date of birth was shown as 27th February, 1950. The appellant did not take any steps against this insertion. He obtained a certificate dated 25th March, 2003 from Raniganj High School, also much later, recording his date of birth as 25th October, 1959. The court did not believe this certificate. The court proceeded on the basis that the appellant had accepted the declaration of his age in the identity card.
10. The writ application was dismissed at the motion stage.
11. Hence, this appeal.
12. Mr. Kumar, appearing for the respondents at the outset submitted that an opportunity should be given to him to file an affidavit-in-opposition to the stay petition. He said that an affidavit-in-opposition is necessary because such an affidavit was not filed before the court below. We did not allow him to do so for two reasons. We noticed from the records that on 20th September, 2016 a division bench of this court had directed hearing of the appeal after the puja vacation. On 25th January, 2021 another division bench of this court directed that the appeal and the said application would be heard on 1st February, 2021. No prayer had been made by Mr. Kumar on either of the two days for filing an affidavit-inopposition to the said petition.
13. Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate for the appellant was right when he submitted that in the earlier writ of 2005 the respondent had filed a detailed affidavit-in-opposition which is annexed to the stay petition. That writ had been disposed of as stated earlier by directing the respondent to consider the age correction matter by a reasoned decision. No new facts have occurred.
14. Mr. Ghosh also submitted that the said affidavit-in-opposition was a complete reflection of the defence of the respondents and the prayer for filing a fresh affidavit-in-opposition was a mere formality and should not be accepted by the court as it would delay hearing of the appeal.
15. We are in full agreement with such submission.
16. The said affidavit has been placed before
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
