Bhagirathi Singh vs Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Others

Virender Singh, C.J—Appellant is the writ petitioner (hereinafter to be referred to as ''petitioner'' only) is aggrieved of the dismissal of his writ petition bearing Bhagirathi Singh Vs. The Jharkhand State Electricity Board though its Chairman and Others, (2013) 3 AJR 748 : (2013) 2 JLJR 326 , vide impugned judgment dated 15.3.2013 of learned Single Judge. One year before his retirement, the petitioner submitted a representation for correction of his date of birth in the service book which representation was not decided, ultimately, in terms of the order dated 4.9.2003 he was made to retire with effect from 31.1.2004 which constrained him to knock the door of the Writ Court. Date of birth of the petitioner as recorded in the service book is 6.1.1944.

A matter cropped up with regard to tampering of the date of birth in the service book of several workmen and a direction was given by the respondent for their medical examination for determination of their age which gave cause to the workmen union to move this Court through the medium of writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 290 of 2001. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the employees to furnish documentary evidences in support of their age to the authority and if the authority was not satisfied with the documents to be furnished by the employees, in that eventuality, the authority was permitted to direct the employees to undergo the medical examination. Against the said order, Letters Patent Appeal was filed in this Court which was also disposed of directing constituting a one man Tribunal to examine/scrutinize and consider the cases of all the workmen for determining their date of birth and if necessary, for undergoing medical examination. Admittedly, the petitioner did not appear before the Tribunal.

The plea raised by the petitioner before the learned Writ Court was that he was medically examined at one stage at the instance of the respondents only when the age of the petitioner was assessed as 57 years by the medical board, as such he was entitled to retirement on 31.1.2006 and not on 31.1.2004 despite his age reflected in service book as 6.1.1944. The learned Writ Court did not agree with the contention of the petitioner and dismissed the writ petition primarily on the ground that he never challenged the date of birth recorded in his service book right from the date of his appointment and asked for correction of date of birth only when he was on the verge of retirement.

Mr. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the labour has once again reiterated the case of the petitioner as projected before the learned Writ Court.

We do not find any substance in the case of the writ petitioner. Date of birth cannot be changed at the drop of the hat whenever an employee wants it. Application for this purpose should be made within the time fixed by any Rule or Order or in absence thereof, it should be made within a reasonable time.

In case of Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department and others Vs. R. Kirubakaran, AIR 1993 SC 2647 : (1993) 5 JT 404 : (1994) 1 LLJ 673 : (1993) 3 SCALE 829 : (1994) 1 SCC 155 Supp : (1993) 2 SCR 376 Supp : (1994) 1 SLJ 141 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court interfered with the order passed by the Tribunal whereby an application, filed after 33 years of the service and one year before the superannuation seeking correction in the date of birth of an employee, was allowed by the Tribunal. The Hon''ble Supreme Court held that application seeking correction should be made within a reasonable time, if any Rule or Order is not in place.

In case of State of U.P. and Others Vs. Smt. Gulaichi, AIR 2003 SC 4209 : (2003) 6 JT 59 : (2003) 5 SCALE 432 : (2003) 6 SCC 483 : (2003) SCC(L&S) 908 : (2003) 1 SCR 762 Supp : (2004) 1 SLJ 281 : (2003) AIRSCW 3775 : (2003) 5 Supreme 122 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court interfered with the order whereby correction in the date of birth recorded in the service book was allowed at the verge of retirement.

In the case on hand, the application was made by the petitioner when he had only two years to retire. Interestingly, he has not attached any document indicating his date of birth other than 6.1.1944. It is not a case that petitioner was having any authenticated documentary evidence with him which he had brought to the notice of the concerned authority at the time of employment but inadvertently the date of birth was mentioned other than what appeared in that document. The petitioner simply wants to derive benefit from the radiological examination conducted by the medical board, may be at the instance of the authority, where his age is assessed as 57 years. Assessment made by the medical board cannot be taken as a conclusive proof of age as there can be variation of 2 years on either side. It is very well settled. Had the petitioner been in possession of any documentary evidence indicating his age less than what was actually recorded in the service book, one could still think of according consideration to the assessment of the medical board giving the margin of two years towards his side but that is not the factual position in this case. What appears to us is that the petitioner has just made an attempt to get the date of birth changed when he was on the verge of retirement thinking that he might get some favourable order at this stage on the basis of medical board assessment, but it is a futile attempt. Viewed thus, we are not inclined to disturb the impugned judgment handed down by the learned Single Judge whereby dismissing the writ petition. Resultantly, the instant appeal merits dismissal. Ordered accordingly.