Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, C.J., RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, J.
Jai Prakash Singh, S/o. Shri Nand Ji Singh - Appellant
Versus
South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. & Ors. - Respondents
WA No. 480 of 2023
Decided On : 14-03-2024
Date of Birth - Service Record - Mines Act, 1952, Section 40, Section 45 - The court discussed the provisions of the Mines Act, 1952, particularly Section 40 and Section 45, which govern the employment of adolescents and children in mines. The court emphasized the importance of authentic documents for ascertaining the age of employees and highlighted the significance of matriculation certificates as per Implementation Instruction No.76. The court also referred to relevant case laws to support the appellant's claim for correction of date of birth in the service record.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee in the coal industry, sought correction of his date of birth in the service record, which was unilaterally changed by the employer. The petitioner's date of birth was recorded as 01.07.1959 at the time of appointment, but the employer changed it to 28.02.1958 based on a committee's recommendation and a circular issued by the Government of India. The petitioner challenged this change, citing relevant provisions of the Mines Act, 1952 and the National Coal Wages Agreement (NCWA).
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the employer's unilateral alteration of the petitioner's date of birth, without considering authentic documents such as the matriculation certificate, was unjustified. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the provisions of the Mines Act, 1952 and the NCWA, and highlighted the petitioner's right to seek correction of his date of birth based on irrefutable proof.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the unilateral change of the petitioner's date of birth by the employer, the applicability of the Mines Act, 1952 and the NCWA, and the significance of authentic documents for determining the age of employees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the employer's failure to consider the petitioner's authentic matriculation certificate and the provisions of the Mines Act, 1952 and the NCWA. The court emphasized the petitioner's right to seek correction of his date of birth based on irrefutable proof, as established in relevant case laws.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was allowed, setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. The petitioner's writ petition was allowed, and the order changing the petitioner's date of birth was quashed, entitling the petitioner to all consequential benefits.
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
1. Challenge in the present writ appeal is the order dated 09.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.2156 of 2018 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner/writ appellant for correction of his date of birth in the service record, has been dismissed.
2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioner was appointed as General Mazdoor with the respondent employer on 28.02.1976 and at the time of his appointment, his date of birth was recorded as 01.07.1959. At the time of his appointment on the post of General Mazdoor he mentioned his date of birth as 01.07.1959 in Form B, Form PS3 and Form PS4 and other relevant documents maintained by the respondent as per rules. The petitioner/appellant was awarded Mining Sardar Certificate on 06.05.1987 after successfully clearing the Mining Sardar examination under the Mines Act, 1952. Thereafter, he has also obtained Overman's certificate on 24.09.1989 in which also his date of birth is mentioned as 01.07.1959. The petitioner has also passed his High School Examination from Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh on 28.09.1975 in which also the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 01.07.1959. In Form PS3 and Form PS4 which are relating to the members of the family and nomination form maintained by the respondent authorities, even in the electoral roll, PAN card etc. date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 01.07.1959. However, on the recommendation of the Age Determination Committee the respondent had unilaterally corrected the date of birth of the petitioner as 28.02.1958 vide order dated 12.05.2000 after considering required minimum age of 18 years on the date of coming into service.
3. The petitioner made a representation before the respondent authorities for correction of date of birth in his service record, but the same has not been considered, despite his continuous efforts and requests and vide order dated 14.09.2014 it was informed by the respondent authorities that the case of the petitioner for correction of his date of birth cannot be reopened and his date of birth will remain as 28.02.1958. Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.09.2014 the petitioner had filed a WPS No.6642/2014 before this Court which was allowed vide order dated 23.11.2017 setting aside the order dated 14.09.2014 and directed the respondent authorities to hold an enquiry about the age of the petitioner and to take decision after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Age Determination Committee of the department of SECL and vide order dated 23.02.2018 the Age Determination Committee has held that the date of birth 28.02.1958 is correct and accordingly he is due for retirement on 28.02.2018. Therefore, he again file the present writ petition challenging the order dated 23.02.2018 passed by the said Age Determination Committee and prayed for a direction to allow him to continue in service with all consequential benefits treating the date of birth of the petitioner as 01.07.1959.
4. It was pleaded in the writ petition that in the year 1973the Govt. of India constituted a committee in the name of Joint Bipartite Committee for Coal India (hereinafter referred as 'JBCCI'). The JBCCI held several negotiations in the field of service conditions of the non-executive cadre employees of coal industry. Various agreements were signed from time to time which are called as National Coal Wages Agreement (NCWA). The terms and conditions of the services of the petitioner in coal mines are governed by NCWA. This settlement is binding upon the parties in terms of Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was also decided by the JBCCI that in cases of wrong entry in respect of age/date of birth of the employee and the management, in such cases the correctness of the same will be decided through the Age Determination Committee. The implementation Instruction No.76 (herein
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of authentic documents, such as matriculation certificates, for determining the date of birth of employees. The judgment emphasiz....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that applications for correction of date of birth in service records must be reasonable and timely. The delay in seeking correction, absence of irr....
Correction of date of birth in service records is not a matter of right and is subject to procedural and timely constraints, particularly if raised at the fag end of service.
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
