The date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate authenticated by the Education Board is conclusive proof of age, and a change in date of birth cannot be entertained at the fag end of service after accepting the same to be correct during entire service.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of reversal being the judgment and decree dated 01.05.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge-XIII, Dhanbad, in Title Appeal No.131 of 2007 by which the learned first appellate court reversed the judgment of dismissal of the suit passed by the Additional Munsif-1st in Title Suit No.77 of 2003 and allowed the appeal on contest and decreed the suit and the declared the date of birth of the sole respondent to be 01.07.1955.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the respondent-plaintiff is the employee of the defendant-appellant company. He was appointed on 31.01.1973. At the time of his joining in capacity of Mining Sardar, he recorded his date of birth to be 06.05.1948. In this respect he filled up Form-B of the appellant-defendant- Company which has been marked Ext.A but it is the case of the plaintiff that his actual date of birth is 01.07.1955 and during the preparation of service record of the plaintiff, the date of birth of the plaintiff was wrongly recorded as 06.05.1948. The plaintiff requested the defendant for correction of the date of birth in his service records but the defendants refused the same. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his date of birth to be 01.07.1955 and further declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to work with the defendant till 01.07.2015 and cost of the suit. The defendant contested the suit by contending that the plaintiff is a literate person and he is knowing pretty well that his date of birth is 06.05.1948 and voluntarily mentioned the said date of birth in the Form-B and also signed the same. Hence, prayed that the suit be dismissed.

4. The learned trial court framed the following five issues:-

1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?

2. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit?

3. Whether the suit is barred by the principles of waiver, acquiescence and estoppel?

4. Whether the date of birth of the plaintiff as entered in his service records is the correct date of birth?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief or reliefs as claimed?

5. Learned trial court considered evidence put forth by the parties and came to a conclusion that there is no plausible reason as to why the plaintiff did not produce documents to show his date of birth to be 01.07.1955 at the time of his employment and dismissed the suit.

6. Learned lower appellate court formulated the following two points for determination:-

1. Whether the age of the plaintiff/appellant is 01.07.1955 or 06.05.1948?

2. Whether the judgment and decree of the learned court below is liable to be set aside?

7. The learned first appellate court made independent appreciation of the evidences and relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Kamta Pandey Vs. M/s. B.C.C.L. through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad & Others reported in 2007 (3) JLJR 726 and arrived at the conclusion that the date of the birth of the respondent/plaintiff is 01.07.1955 basing upon the Ext.1 which is the purported certificate of Junior High School Examination, 1970.

8. At the time of admission of this Second Appeal, the following two substantial questions of law were framed:-

1. Whether the Court of Appeal below has committed error of law in reversing the finding recorded by the trial Court on the issue of date of birth?

2. Whether for the purpose of determining the age of an employee, Form-B Register will be the conclusive evidence?

9. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta-learned counsel for the appellants relies upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Pyare Singh Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Others reported in 2014 (3) JCR 679 (Jhr) paragraphs-6 and 7 of which read as under:-

“6. The learned counsel of the respondent – company has also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2014 (3) JBCJ 28 SC in the case of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd & Ors. Vs. Chho