Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.N. PATHAK, J.
Suleman Mia – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) – Respondent
W.P.(S) No. 4996 of 2012
Decided on : 11-01-2023
Date of Birth - Retirement Notice - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Statutory Form-B Register - NEIS - Implementation Instruction No.76 of NCWA-III - Acknowledgment of Date of Birth - Judicial Precedents
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash a retirement notice issued by the employer based on the recorded date of birth, and requested correction of the date of birth in official records. The petitioner joined service in 1979, with the recorded date of birth as 22.01.1951, while claiming his school leaving certificate stated 01.01.1958 as his date of birth. The petitioner made representations for correction, but the retirement notice was issued in 2011, leading to the court case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had acknowledged the recorded date of birth in the Statutory Form-B Register and had not raised any grievance throughout the service career. The court held that the request for change of date of birth at the fag end of service could not be entertained. The court cited judicial precedents and held that no interference was warranted regarding correction in date of birth at the fag end of service.
Issues: The issues involved the discrepancy between the recorded date of birth and the petitioner's claimed date of birth, the acknowledgment of the recorded date of birth, and the timing of raising the grievance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the acknowledgment of the recorded date of birth by the petitioner, the timing of raising the grievance after superannuation, and the application of judicial precedents regarding correction of date of birth at the fag end of service.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as having no merit.
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the notice of retirement dated 05/7.9.2011 issued by the Project Officer, Kooridih Colliery, Govindpur Area, BCCL, Dhanbad, whereby, petitioner was made to retire from the services of Company on 01.02.2011 on attaining the age of 60 years treating the date of birth as per record as 22.01.1951. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 01.01.1958 on the basis of his school leaving certificate and to allow him to continue in service till he attains 60 years of age.
2. Shorts facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the service of respondent-BCCL on 22.1.1979 and at the time of joining, he submitted his school leaving certificate. It is the specific case of the petitioner that date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 01.01.1958 in the school leaving certificate and on that basis, PAN card was also issued to him. In the year 1987, it was detected that in service excerpts, his date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 22.01.1951. Thereafter the petitioner made several representations requesting to correct the date of birth right from the date, it came to knowledge of this petitioner till 20.8.2009. However, a notice was issued on 7.9.2011 informing the petitioner that as per Company’s record, he will attain 60 years of age on 31.1.2011 and he shall retire with effect from 01.02.2011. Thereafter, again the petitioner represented vide his representations dated 14.10.2011 and 7.4.2012 to correct his date of birth, but no heed was paid. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.
3. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner, as the lawyers are on strike in view of call of Jharkhand State Bar Council. As per averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned notice of retirement on the ground that the respondents cannot make the petitioner to retire prior to attaining the age of 60 years on the basis of wrong entry of his date of birth in the service excerpts. The respondents are bound to consider the date of birth as mentioned in the school leaving certificate and other documents, which were produced at the time of appointment, wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 01.01.1958 and the same has been accepted by the respondent on pointing out by the petitioner himself during the service tenure. It was also contended that the respondents had never communicated the petitioner about the date of birth entered in the service record and no confirmation was done by the petitioner in terms of Clause 35 & 36 of the Certified Standing Order of M/s. BCCL, which is mandatory provisions for employer. It was further contended that the petitioner has illegally made to retire prematurely on 01.02.2011, which is illegal and arbitrary and as such, impugned Notice of retirement dated 7.9.2011 is liable to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner is entitled for continuity of his service without any break and since the petitioner has already superannuated, he is entitled for salary and other allowances for that period. To strengthen these averments, judgment of this Court in the case of Kamta Pandey Vs. M/s BCCL, reported in 2007 (3) 681 Jhr (FB) has been referred to.
4. Contrary to that, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Ms. Anjali Sinha, learned counsel representing the respondent-BCCL submits that the writ petition is not maintainable since the petitioner is a workman, within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such, remedy available with the petitioner is first to invoke the provisions of the ID Act, 1947. However, on merits, she submitted that in Statutory form-B Register, the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 22.1.1951 and the petitioner has acknowledged the said entry in the Form B Register by putting his signature in the relevant column of the
The request for change of date of birth in official records at the fag end of service cannot be entertained, and judicial precedents support the denial of such requests.
Applications for correction of date of birth at the fag end of service career are not sustainable.
Date of birth declared at service entry is conclusive unless corrected within two years; belated claims with certificates obtained just before superannuation after nearly 20 years not permissible.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for irrefutable proof and timely requests for correction of date of birth in service records, as well as the limitations on seeking....
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
