Civil courts retain jurisdiction over disputes concerning age determination when educational documents demonstrate a valid claim, overriding administrative records.

JUDGMENT :

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The instant second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2010 (decree signed on 20.10.2010) passed by learned Additional District Judge, FTC-V, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No.214 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the appellate court has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2009 (decree signed on 17.09.2009) passed by Subordinate Judge-1st, Dhanbad in Title Suit No.52 of 2002 whereby the suit of the plaintiff was decreed.

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the plaintiff/respondent, Gopal Prasad was appointed on 02.08.1972 as loading clerk in Kenduadih colliery and subsequently promoted as loading inspector at Barari Coal Works. According to the plaintiff, his date of birth was mentioned as 06.02.1952 in Form ‘B’ register maintained by his employer, the defendant. The same date of birth is also mentioned in the identity card, which was entered on the basis of admit card issued for Higher Secondary School Examination Board in which the plaintiff had appeared. According to the plaintiff, his date of birth was manipulated by the defendants from 06.02.1952 to 31 years age on the date of joining i.e. 02.08.1972. The plaintiff raised dispute against recording his aforesaid age by the defendants. Accordingly, his age assessment was referred to the Apex Medical Board, which assessed the age of the plaintiff as 56 years on 05.03.1999. The plaintiff challenged the aforesaid age assessment by preferring a writ being CWJC No.2464 of 2000(R) before the Hon’ble High Court which was disposed of with the observation that the plaintiff may approach the civil court for declaration of the date of birth. Accordingly, the plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.52 of 2002 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division-1st , Dhanbad for a decree of declaration that the date of birth of the plaintiff is 06.02.1952 and the age assessment made by Apex Medical Board dated 05.03.1999 is inoperative and also for decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from premature superannuating the plaintiff and also for other consequential relief and continuity in service and for the wages and monetary benefits. It was further stated that the plaintiff will superannuate on 06.02.2012 as per date of birth entered in the admit card issued by BSEB but the plaintiff was illegally superannuated on 05.03.2003. There is deliberate and substantial loss of employment of the plaintiff for about 9 years.

4. On the other hand, the case of the defendants/appellants as per their written statement is that the document shown by the plaintiff about his date of birth to be 06.02.1952 is neither authentic nor held reliable and acceptable in law and the suit is barred under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The plaintiff himself appeared before the Apex Medical Board and later on disputing the same on imaginary date of birth as such estopped from filing the suit. No certificate of matriculation and entry made in Form ‘B’ is correct and the plaintiff entered into service in the year 1972 and disclosed his age as 31 years, thus subsequent declaration of age at fag end of the service is not acceptable un