The central legal point established in the judgment is the duty of corporations/departments to rectify date of birth disputes and the importance of adhering to the procedure for such rectifications, as emphasized in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Others vs. Chhota Birsa Uranw.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner praying for the following reliefs:

“(I) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent SECL to accept the actual date of birth of the petitioner as 20/4/1953 and accordingly declare the date of retirement of the petitioner i.e. 31/12/2007 as void and further fix his date of superannuation as 31/3/2013 on attaining the age of 60 years, because on account of cavalier manner of the respondent SECL the radiologist report in respect of the petitioner has been misplaced.

(II) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent SECL to make payment of entire salary and all other allowances for the period from 31/12/2007 to 31/3/2013 along with consequential benefits.

(III) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, along with cost of the petition may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Driver in SECL and got retired on 31.12.2007 as per his date of birth recorded in service book as 01.01.1948, whereas according to the petitioner, his date of birth was 20.04.1953, as such he should have been retired on 31.03.2013. Before retiring, the petitioner raised the said issue before the Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur, but during pendency of the dispute before the CGIT, the petitioner got retired from service on 31.12.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation as per the date of birth recorded in the office of SECL. Subsequently by award dated 24/6/2013, the CGIT decided the dispute and directed the management to refer the dispute of date of birth of the petitioner to Age Determination Committee as per Instruction No. 76 within 15 days. After passing the award by the CGIT, by letter dated 3/12/2013 the authorities directed the petitioner to appear before SECL on 9/12/2013 along with photograph and other details so as to enable them to consider his case. Accordingly the petitioner appeared before authorities and also submitted the birth certificate and school leaving certificate and in both the certificates the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 20/4/1953 and on which the radiologist test was conducted on the said date. When no action has been taken by the authorities, the petitioner sent a legal notice to the SECL on 25/6/2014 and prayed for considering his case on the basis of the radiologist report. All of a sudden by letter dated 10/10/2014 the respondent SECL informed the petitioner that the radiologist report dated 9/12/2013 has been misplaced and again directed the petitioner to appear before the SECL for radiologist test on 21/10/2014, against which the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action on the part of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. All of a sudden by letter dated 10/10/2014, the respondent SECL informed the petitioner that the radiologist report dated 9/12/2013 has been misplaced and again directed the petitioner to appear before the SECL for radiologist test on 21/10/2014. The impugned action of the respondent authorities is illegal and arbitrary because after lapse of more than 10 months, the authorities of SECL by a single line communication stated that the radiologist report has been misplaced and from the said fact it can be seen about the cavalier manner of the respondent authorities in respect of the employees of the SECL. The petitioner is approaching the respondent authorities since 2002-2003 i.e. much before the date of his retirement for correction of his date of birth, but nothing has been done despite the award passed by the Labour Court. Therefore, writ petition may kindly be allowed and the respondent authorities be directed to declare the date of birth of the petitioner as 20.04.1953 and according