Ananda Kumar Ghosh vs Durgapur Projects Limited & Ors

Biswanath Somadder, J

By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for consideration along with the connected application.

The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 5th April, 2019, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP 11756 (W) of 2017 (Ananda Kumar Ghosh vs. The Durgapur Project Limited & Anr.). By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition holding that the same was devoid of merits.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner.

According to the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner, the issue sought to be raised in the instant appeal is squarely covered by two Supreme Court judgments. In this context, he refers to the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-

(i) (2009) 5 SCC 703 (R.K. Jangra vs. State of Punjab & Ors.);

(ii) (2011) 9 SCC 644 (State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Premlal Shrivas).

For convenience, the impugned judgment and order is set out hereinbelow in its entirety:-

"Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be taken on record.

The petitioner is an employee of Durgapur Project Limited. His grievance is that his date of birth has been wrongly recorded in his service record.

The petitioner made a representation before the authorities on 25th. March 2017 and a further demand justice by his learned Advocate on 3rd. April 2017 to rectify the date of birth recorded in his service record relying on an alleged school leaving certificate which remains unauthenticated.

Pursuant to the direction passed by the Court the respondent authorities have filed a report in the form of an affidavit. In the said report it has been disclosed that at the time of joining of the petitioner in his service, the father of the petitioner affirmed an affidavit declaring the date of birth of his son as 23rd. May, 1959. The said affidavit was submitted along with the declaration signed by the petitioner himself wherein his date of birth has been disclosed as 23rd. May, 1959.

The petitioner made further declaration in the declaration form that his date of birth is 23rd May, 1959. All the documents submitted by the petitioner to the employer including the verification roll, application for family medical card etc. his date of birth has been mentioned as 23rd May, 1959.

According to the provision of Clause "4(c)" of the Standing Orders of the Company, the date of birth which is recorded as per the first declaration supported by an affidavit is continuing.

The petitioner was all along aware that his date of birth was recorded in his service records as 23rd May, 1959. Prayer for rectification of the same at the fag end of his service career is not permissible.

No case whatsoever has been made out by the petitioner warranting an order in his favour.

W.P. 11756 (W) of 2017 is devoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed."

Even a bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. The two judgments referred to by the learned advocate representing the appellant/writ petitioner have no manner of application at all in the facts of the instant case.

That apart and in any event, in an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal, interference is usually warranted only when palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. In the facts of the instant case, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order.

For reasons stated above, the appeal and the application for junction are liable to be dismissed and stand accordingly dismissed.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties.