Order on Board

02.09.2024

1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

“(i) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records which are in possession of the Respondents.

(ii) This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to quash the impugned order dated 03.06.2014 (Annexure P-1).

(iii) This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to direct the respondent to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 3.1.1962.

(iv) Alternatively this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to refer the case of the petitioner for determination of his age before Age Determination Committee of the respondent Company.

(v) Cost of this petition be awarded to the petitioners.

(vi) Any other relief/ reliefs, order/ orders, direction/ directions and writ/ writs as may be deemed fit by the Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of General Majdoor Category-I on 05.06.1987. He would further submit that due to a mistake in the service record, the date of birth of the petitioner was entered as 05.06.1957 whereas his correct date of birth as per Mining Sirdar Certificate is 03.01.1962. He would also submit that on 18.02.2014 an application was moved before the respondent authorities to correct the date of birth and WPS No.1900 of 2014 was filed which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.04.2014 with liberty to pursue the representation. He would further contend that the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent authorities on 03.06.2014 on the basis of the B-Form and service sheet in which the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 05.06.1957. He would also contend that in the Mining Sirdar Certificate, the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as

03.01.1962 and such certificate is admissible according to the Implementation Instruction No.76 issued by the SECL itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Amar Singh vs. Sub Area Manager and Ors., WP No. 258 of 2004.

3) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that at the fag-end of service on 18.02.2014 an application for correction of date of birth was moved. He would further submit that the petitioner was appointed on 05.06.1987 and his date of birth was recorded as 05.06.1957. He would also submit that till acquiring qualification of Mining Sirdar, no claim was made by the petitioner for correction of date of birth. He would argue that after getting the Mining Sirdar Certificate, the petitioner applied for a correction of date of birth. He would also contend that in Form-B and service sheet, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 05.06.1957 and this fact was within the knowledge of the petitioner but no steps were taken prior to 18.02.2014 to move any application for correction of the date of birth and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Ambikeshwar Singh vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and Ors., WPS No. 2379 of 2014.

4) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents present on the record.

5) The service record of the petitioner would reveal that the petitioner was appointed on 05.06.1987 and his date of birth was recorded as 05.06.1957 in the Form-B and service-sheet. The petitioner acquired qualification of Mining Sirdar on 14.02.1992 in which his date of birth is recorded as 03.01.1962. The petitioner has failed to place any document to demonstrate the foundation of date of birth i.e. 03.01.1962 recorded in the certificate of Mining Sirdar and in the absence of any document it cannot be presumed that the entry made in the Mining Sirdar Certificate i