Bhagirath Singh vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Others

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.—1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner was appointed on 15.4.1974 as Piece Rated Worker on temporary basis subject to medical fitness to be certified by the Medical Officer of the Corporation and age being 18 years and above and also upon verification of his antecedents. He has challenged his superannuation notice dated 25.8.2012(Annexure-2) issued by the Project Officer, Moonidih Coal Washery under the respondent- Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad by which, he has been informed of his retirement on 28.2.2013 as per his date of birth recorded in the official records as 8.2.1953.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has illegally been superannuated on the basis of wrong date of birth recorded in his official records at the relevant point of time, though as per the submission made at para 8 of the counter affidavit, the respondents themselves say that in the appointment letter, the expression used is ''18 years and above'' to be certified by the Medical Officer, which could be relevant month and date of the year 1956 as he was appointed in the year 1974. However, without any rationale, his date of birth has been shown as 8.2.1953, 3 years more than his correct date of birth, as per which, he should have retired in 2016.

On his representation made on coming to know of such anomaly in his service record, he has been sent for medical examination by the Apex Medical Board after his retirement in May, 2013, which cannot be of any consequence to assess the age of the petitioner at this stage when he is much older. The ossification test can have sanctity and semblance only if conducted at a younger age like assessment of age of minor person attaining majority. Determination of age after his retirement relied upon by the respondents to submit that he was more than 60 years of age in 2013, therefore is of no relevance. Petitioner was illiterate and any signature made on the official records maintained by the employer should not be given much importance. The matter, therefore requires interference by this Court.

Respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that petitioner being illiterate was appointed subject to the medical fitness to be certified by the Medical Officer of the Corporation and age being 18 years and above as per his appointment letter itself issued on 15.4.1974(Annexure-1). Reliance has been placed upon the service excerpts, Annexure-B, countersigned by the petitioner as also the documents prepared at Moonidih Coal Washery where he was transferred from Moonidih Project in 1998 to support the submission that petitioner at every occasion consciously acknowledged his date of birth as 8.2.1953 recorded in such documents. Even in the Form-B his date of birth is recorded as 8.2.1953(Annexure-E). After 37 years of his service in the year 2011 he has submitted application for correction of his date of birth. Upon examination by the Apex Medical Board on 6.6.2013 also he was assessed in between 60-65 years. Therefore, by any stretch of logic and reasoning, petitioner cannot claim to be less than 60 years of age on his date of retirement on 28.2.2013. Petitioner has already withdrawn retirement benefit and drawing his pension regularly. Therefore, such interference is not at all warranted on any available grounds for judicial review before this Court.

I have considered the submission of the parties and material pleadings in light of the documents enclosed. Annexure-1, the appointment letter of the petitioner relied upon by him shows that he was appointed on temporary basis on its terms and conditions subject to the medical fitness and age being assessed 18 years and above by the Medical Officer of the Corporation. It was also subject to the verification of antecedent. After such appointment, all official documents enclosed by the respondents, such as service excerpts (Annexure-B), Form-B(Annexure-E) and other documents bear the same date of birth 8.2.1953 and have been countersigned by the petitioner as well at the relevant point of time. There are no other document to substantiate the contention of the petitioner that his date of birth was wrongly recorded in comparison to his date of birth, claimed by him. Respondents after consideration of the representation of the petitioner have again found through determination by the Apex Medical Board vide Annexure-K dated 6.6.2013 that he is above 60 years of age.

In such circumstance, on the one hand the date of birth entry recorded in the official records and duly acknowledged by the petitioner is unimpeachable by any such admissible documents shown by the petitioner, on the other hand claim for correction of date of birth has been made after retirement in February, 2013 by filing writ petition in January, 2015. Therefore, it needs no interference as no grounds, as such are made out by the petitioner. Petitioner is also drawing his pension and has withdrawn post retirement benefits.

The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed accordingly.