JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 01.07.1959 in place of 01.07.1950.

3. Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-1 and tried to impress this Court that his date of birth has been mentioned as 01.07.1959. He further referred to the Annexure-2 (Coal Mines Provident Fund Form-A) wherein also his date of birth has been mentioned as 01.07.1959.

He further contended that later on the respondent-company managed to manipulate his date of birth as 01.07.1950 in Form-B register (Annexure-3) which is not correct and immediately after knowing this fact he represented before the respondent. However, nothing has been done and a notice has been issued to the petitioner whereby he was forced to retire on 01.07.2010 as per wrong date of birth, which is bad in law and deserves to be set aside.

4. Mr. Arpan Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per Form B register (Annexure-3); the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.07.1950 and said Form-B register was also signed by this petitioner; as such the petitioner is having no right in raising the dispute of date of birth at the fag end of his service.

He further referred to the Para-13 of the counter affidavit and submits that Form-B register is maintained under Section 48 of the Mines Act. Further, the service excerpts of BCCL which was prepared in the year 1987; prior to its finalization; the same was circulated to every workman including the petitioner in the year 1987 with a view to invite objections, if any, with regard to entries made therein. However, the petitioner never raised any objection; as such the contention of the petitioner that his date of birth should be corrected is non-est in the eye of law.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the averments made in the respective affidavits and the documents annexed therein, it appears that as per Form-B register the date of birth of this petitioner is 01.07.1950. It has been informed that this Form-B register was prepared on the basis of old document. Thereafter, service excerpts were also prepared in the year 1987 and prior to finalization of service excerpts; the same was circulated to every workman in the year 1987 itself with a view to invite objections. However, this petitioner never raised any objection.

Further, by perusing the Form-B register it appears that date of birth is categorically mentioned in both words as well as in figure and the same was duly signed by this petitioner; as such, raising the dispute of date of birth at the fag end of service is not permissible in the eye of law.

6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others Vs. Shyam Kishore Singh, reported in (2020)3 SCC 411 has held in paragraph Nos. 9, 10 and 11 as under :-

9. This Court has consistently held that the request for change of the date of birth in the service records at the fag end of service is not sustainable. The learned Additional Solicitor General has in that regard relied on the decision in State of Maharashtra v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble wherein a series of the earlier decisions of this Court were taken note and was held as hereunder:

16. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri. In this case, this Court has considered a number of judgments of this Court and observed that the grievance as to the date of birth in the service record should not be permitted at the fag end of the service career.

17. In another judgment in State of Uttaranchal v. Pitamber Dutt Semwal relief was denied to the government employee on the ground that he sought correction in the service record after nearly 30 years of service. While setting a