Back
2017 Supreme(Jhk) 2116
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Mr. Pramath Patnaik, J.
Ram Jatan Singh - Appellant
Versus
M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited - Respondent
Writ Petition (S) No. 4930 of 2008
Decided On : 10-10-2017
Mr. Abhishek Kumar Chaturvedi, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate, for the Respondent
The conclusive nature of the date of birth recorded in the Form B Register and the requirement for timely challenges to retirement notices.
Headnote:
Date of Birth - Retirement Notice - Form B Register - [Form B Register] - The court discussed the conclusive nature of the date of birth recorded in the Form B Register and the requirement of unimpeachable evidence to dislodge it. The court also emphasized the need for timely challenge of retirement notices.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash a retirement notice and requested a medical examination to determine his age. The petitioner's date of birth was recorded differently in official documents and the Form B Register, leading to the dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's challenge to the retirement notice lacked merit due to the conclusive nature of the date of birth recorded in the Form B Register and the lack of timely action on the petitioner's part.
Issues: Discrepancy in date of birth, challenge to retirement notice, delay in seeking redressal.
Ratio Decidendi: The date of birth recorded in the Form B Register is conclusive unless unimpeachable evidence is presented to dislodge it. Challenges to retirement notices must be timely.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as lacking merit.
JUDGMENT
Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for quashing the letter dated 30.12.2002 (Annexure-6), issued by the Respondent No. 3 pertaining to the notice of retirement of the petitioner and the petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondents to send the petitioner for medical examination as per the Implementation Instruction No. 7 for determining the age of the petitioner.
2. The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application, are that the petitioner was appointed in Jealgora Colliery and has been working as a Foreman. The date of birth of the petitioner in the official documents like I.D. Card, Coal Issue Card etc. has been recorded as 01.08.1948. It has been averred in the writ application that in pursuance to the policy decision, the petitioner was issued with the service excerpt, wherein, the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 01.08.1948 and when the petitioner was suffering from heart ailment, he submitted application for his medical examination and at that relevant point of time, the petitioner came to know that his date of birth is recorded as 01.07.1943 in the Form A.M.B. 1 by the Management as per Annexure-3 to the writ application. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation for correction of his date of birth from 01.07.1943 to 01.08.1948. Inspite of the several representations, no action was taken by the Management for correction of the date of birth of the petitioner. Thereafter, on 30.12.2002, the petitioner was issued with a notice of retirement that the petitioner would retire on attaining the age of 60 years on 30.06.2003. Being aggrieved by the notice of retirement, dated 30.12.2002 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), the petitioner left with no alternative has knocked the door of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
3. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the action of the Respondents-authorities in issuing the impugned notice of retirement, amounts to colourable exercise of power. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents by changing the date of birth of the petitioner from 01.08.1948 to 01.07.1943 has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner since the petitioner has been constrained to face civil/evil consequences being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of the respondents in changing the date of birth of the petitioner unilaterally without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is in the teeth of celebrated judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in SCLJ (3) 1963 in the case of State of Orissa-versus-Dr. (Miss) Binapani Devi.
4. Controverting the assertions made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, stating therein, that the writ petition is hopelessly barred by limitation, since it has been challenged belatedly after superannuation of the petitioner from services and therefore, on that score, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It has further been submitted that the petitioner was appointed in Jealgora Colliery and his service book was opened and at the time of opening of the service book, the petitioner has put his signature and thumb impression. The date of birth of the petitioner as recorded in the employer''s record is 01.07.1943 and the date of commencement of his employment as per the service record is 20.05.1968. It has further been submitted that as per the Form B, which was provided by the respondents authorities to the petitioner at the time of employment, it was evident that the date of birth of the petitioner at the commencement of the employment, was 01.07.1943 as per Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. It has further been submitted that t
