Back
2015 Supreme(Jhk) 1289
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.
Birbal Ram @ Birbal Rabidas - Petitioner
Versus
Central Coalfield Limited & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(S) No. 2193 of 2011
Decided On : 30-09-2015
For the Petitioner:Mrs. Vipul Divya, Advocate
For the C.C.L. :Mr. Kaustav Panda, Advocate
The matriculation certificate shall be treated as the conclusive proof of age, and applications for correction of date of birth should be made within a reasonable time from the date of initial appointment.
Headnote:
Date of Birth Correction - Employment Dispute - [M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others v. Chhota Birsa Uranw, Gopal Prasad Singh vs. M/s BCCL, Dhanbad & Ors., Kamta Pandey vs. M/s B.C.C.L.] - The court discussed the legal provisions related to the correction of date of birth in employment records, emphasizing that the matriculation certificate shall be treated as the conclusive proof of age. It also highlighted the requirement for applications for correction of date of birth to be made within a reasonable time from the date of initial appointment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a correction of his date of birth in employment records, claiming that his matriculation certificate showed a different date of birth than the one recorded by the employer. The petitioner had already superannuated when his request for correction was rejected.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's belated claim for correction of date of birth, made after superannuation, lacked merit. It emphasized that the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate is conclusive proof of age and that applications for correction should be made within a reasonable time from the date of initial appointment.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's request for correction of date of birth in employment records after superannuation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the matriculation certificate shall be treated as the conclusive proof of age and emphasized the requirement for applications for correction of date of birth to be made within a reasonable time from the date of initial appointment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ application, finding no merit in the petitioner's belated claim for correction of date of birth after superannuation.
In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 13.02.1954 instead of 29.08.1951. A further prayer has been made for quashing the letter dated 07/08.01.2011 issued to the petitioner wherein the request for a change of date of birth of the petitioner has been rejected.
2. The petitioner was working in Khas Karanpura Colliery from before nationalization. It is the case of the petitioner that before coming into service the petitioner was a matriculate and considering the educational qualification of the petitioner, he was appointed as a Munshi in 1975 and was subsequently promoted to a higher post. The date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 24.08.1951 whereas in the Matriculation certificate it was shown as 13.02.1954. It is the further case of the petitioner that since in the service excerpts two date of births existed the petitioner represented the authorities to correct his date of birth on the basis of that which has been recorded in his matriculation certificate. The date of birth was never changed although the petitioner had represented the authorities and ultimately the petitioner was issued a letter dated 26.01.2011 in which he was informed that he was to superannuate on 31.08.2011. However, just after his superannuation the claim of the petitioner for change in his date of birth was considered by the authorities and the same was rejected vide letter dated 07/08.01.2011 and which is under challenge in the present writ application.
3. Heard Mrs. Vipul Divya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Kaustav Panda, learned counsel appearing for the respondents -C.C.L.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is a matriculate and his date of birth is 13.02.1954 as has been recorded in the said certificate. It has further been submitted that considering the qualification of the petitioner he was appointed as a Munshi in the scale of pay Rs. 330-12-438. Learned counsel further adds that the petitioner was subsequently regularized/redesignated as M. T. K. Clerk Grade – II in the year 1988 and subsequently as M. T. K. Clerk Grade – I in the year 2005. It has further been submitted that in the cadre scheme for ministerial staffs general clerical cadre requires qualification of a matriculate for promotion in Clerk Grade – III post. For this, learned counsel for the petitioner would suggest that the respondents were all along in possession of the matriculation certificate of the petitioner otherwise the petitioner would not have been granted promotions which are specifically meant for such employees who are at least matriculate. It has been submitted that if the respondents are in possession of the matriculation certificate correction in date of birth in consonance with that in the said certificate could easily have been done but on one pretext or the other the respondents have throughout the service period of the petitioner did not correct the date of birth recorded with his actual date of birth.
5. Mr. Kaustav Panda, learned counsel appearing for the respondents -C.C.L., on the other hand, has referred to various documents maintained by the Company to suggest that there has been consistent evidence on record which would go to prove that the date of birth of the petitioner is 13.02.1954 and not 29.08.1951. In this context, he has referred to the Menials Service Register, Age Determination Committee Report, Excerpt of the Form B Register, Service Sheet, Form PS – 3 and Form PS – 4. It has been submitted that in all the records the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 29.08.1951 and taking into consideration the same the petitioner was superannuated on 31.08.2011. It has been submitted that in the Form B Register the signature of the petitioner is present as also in the report of the Age Determination Committee. It has been submit
