Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
Nand Lal Harijan - Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad represented through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director and ors. – Respondents
W.P.(S) No. 1742 of 2023
Decided On : 23-01-2024
(A) Mines Act, 1952 - Correction of date of birth - Writ petition filed for quashing retirement notice based on incorrect date of birth - Petitioner claimed date of birth as per matriculation mark-sheet, but service records maintained a different date - Court emphasized that corrections at the fag-end of service are discouraged and must be supported by irrefutable proof - Delay in raising the issue fatal to the claim. (Paras 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 14)
(B) Employment Law - Service records - The court held that once a date of birth is recorded in service records and acknowledged by the employee, it cannot be changed without substantial proof and within a reasonable time frame. (Paras 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought correction of his date of birth from 03.08.1961 to 14.09.1963, claiming the latter was recorded in his matriculation mark-sheet. The petitioner was informed of his retirement based on the former date.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petitioner's claim due to the substantial delay in raising the issue and lack of sufficient evidence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner could change his recorded date of birth at such a late stage in his career.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that corrections to date of birth in service records must be made promptly and with clear evidence; otherwise, they cannot be entertained, especially at the end of service.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
ORDER :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing letter no. H-163 dated 25/27.05.2021 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition) issued under the signature of Project Officer, Moonidih Colliery, Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL), Dhanbad (the respondent No.3), whereby the petitioner was intimated that he would attain the age of 60 years on 03.08.2021 and as such he would retire from service on 31.08.2021. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the official records as per his date of birth recorded in his matriculation mark-sheet and to allow him to continue in service till 14.09.2023 as well as to pay all the consequential benefits including arrears of salary and allowances for the period he has been prevented from discharging his duty by the impugned letter.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner namely Late Kailash Harijan was an employee of the respondent-BCCL, who was declared medically unfit by the medical board of the said respondent, and in his place, the petitioner was offered employment to the post of ‘General Majdoor’, Category-I under TRM (Time Rated Majdoor) vide letter dated 10.07.1981 issued by Deputy Chief Mining Engineer-cum-Project Officer, Moonidih Project, Dhanbad. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to bring all the relevant documents including the educational certificates. Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner submitted all the required documents including his Matriculation mark-sheet wherein his date of birth was recorded as 14.09.1963. Further, the petitioner was sent for medical examination vide letter dated 10.07.1981 issued by the Senior Personnel Officer, Moonidih Project, BCCL, Dhanbad as per the Mines Act, 1952 and accordingly he was examined on 16.07.1981. Subsequently, the petitioner was issued appointment letter vide office order dated 03.08.1981 and he was directed to report for duty to the Superintendent/Project Manager, Moonidih Project with effect from 03.08.1981 itself.
3. It is further submitted that the I.D. Card or any of the documents provided to the petitioner by the respondent-company does not mention his date of birth, and as such he was under bonafide impression that his date of birth was recorded in the service record as 14.09.1963 which was mentioned in his Matriculation mark-sheet.
4. It is also submitted that sometime in year 2013, the promotion list of the employees including the petitioner was displayed from which, he came to know that his date of birth entered in records of the respondent-company was 03.08.1961. He got a copy of his service excerpts to verify the date of birth as recorded in the service book and came to know that his age in the service excerpts was mentioned as 20 years as on 03.08.1981. The petitioner made repeated representations to the respondent authorities including representations dated 20.05.2013, 01.03.2016 and 28.07.2016 requesting to correct his date of birth as 14.09.1963, however the same remained unresponded.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner’s matriculation mark-sheet was sent for verification by the respondent authorities and the same was found genuine which would be evident from letter dated 17.11.2017 issued by the Assistant Secretary/Deputy Secretary, Secondary Education Council, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad to the Deputy Manager (Personnel), Moonidih Colliery, Dhanbad. The respondent authorities having not decided the issue of correction of the petitioner’s date of birth, he again represented the Project Officer, Moonidih Colliery, BCCL (the respondent no. 3) on 11.10.2018 whereafter he received letter no. 615 dated 28/29.11.2019 issued by the Area Personnel Manager, Western Jharia Area, Moonidih (the respondent no. 5) seeking clarification in connection with correction of his date of birth. The petitioner submitted his rep
The court ruled that corrections to an employee's recorded date of birth must be made promptly and substantiated by irrefutable evidence, especially when requested at the end of service.
Correction of date of birth in service records is not a matter of right and is subject to procedural and timely constraints, particularly if raised at the fag end of service.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that requests for correction of date of birth at the fag end of a career must be supported by irrefutable proof and evidence of real injustice, and....
Applications for correction of date of birth in service records can be rejected on grounds of delay and lack of irrefutable proof, especially when made at the fag-end of service.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that applications for correction of date of birth in service records must be reasonable and timely. The delay in seeking correction, absence of irr....
Requests for correction of date of birth in service records made at the end of service are not sustainable unless made within prescribed time limits and with clear evidence of error.
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
