The date of birth recorded in the company's statutory documents, such as the Form - B register, holds primacy and can prevail over discrepancies in other documents.

Per Amitav K. Gupta, J :

1. The instant Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 28.03.2006, passed in W.P.(S) No.6314 of 2005, whereby the writ petition of the appellant, for quashing the letter dated 18/23-07-2005, issued by the respondents intimating him that he would be superannuating from service w.e.f. 31.12.2005, was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case is that the appellant was appointed in Bharat Cocking Coal Limited (in short B.C.C.L) in the year 1970 as an underground labourer and he became permanent employee of the management in the year 1980 and he was posted as surface employee in the same year; that vide letter dated 3/04-02-1986 (Annexure – 1) the appellant was regularized as dresser in Technical Grade “H”. It is stated that at the time of appointment the appellant had mentioned his date of birth as 04-02-1952 on the basis of the matriculation certificate granted to the appellant in the year 1966 by the Bihar School Examination Board (Annexure – 2); that he was matriculate at the time of appointment and he was not questioned by the appellant regarding the entry made with respect to the date of birth; that he was issued service excerpts in the year 1987, wherein his date of birth was recorded as 04-02-1952 (Annexure – 3); that initially the date of birth of the appellant was recorded as 1943 in the service excerpts (Annexure – 3), which was brought to the notice of the respondents corrected as 04-02-1952 and the appellant was under the belief that necessary corrections have been carried out in accordance with the standing orders, with respect, to the appointees who have passed matriculation or equivalent examination; that the appellant – petitioner was surprised to receive a letter from the management bearing No.BCCL/858 dated 18/23-07-2005 (Annexure – 4), whereby, he was intimated that he would be attaining the age of 60 years and would be retiring w.e.f 31-12-2005; that in Annexure – 4 showing the superannuation in December, 2005, the date of birth has not been mentioned and in the said Annexure – 4, the date of birth of the appellant has been recorded as 1945; that the appellant filed a representation with respondent No.6 i.e. the Manager, Industry, Kusunda Area on 05.08.2005 intimating him about the incorrect entry of the date of birth requesting them to make necessary correction, but the same was not looked into, whereupon the appellant filed a writ application being W.P.(S) No.6314 of 2005 for quashing the letter dated 18/23-07-2005, but the said writ was dismissed by the impugned order.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has assailed the impugned order and submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that as per instruction 76 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company in the case of any employee, who was a matriculate at the time of joining, the date of birth as recorded in the matriculation certificate would be final and would have a binding effect. It is argued that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the petitioner had raised the dispute relating to his date of birth at the fag end of his career; that in view of the entry made in the service excerpts, the appellant had no apprehension that incorrect date of birth has been entered. It has also been argued that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that service excerpts contained a different date of birth from what has entered in the statutory Form -B register by the respondent, who had denied the opportunity to the appellant to get the date of birth rectified and corrected.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the date of birth of the appellant recorded in matriculation certificate simply demonstrates that his date of superannuation should not have been in the year 2005 and in support of his contention, he has also relied in the decision reported in2007(3)JCR681(Jhr)(FB) in the case of Kamta Pandey Vs. M/s B.C.C.L through Chairman-cum-