Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Another vs Shakunti Devi

The Petitioner/Respondent''s husband was an employee of the BCCL and during his service time, he submitted an application for correction of his date of birth for which there is a procedure already provided by the Appellant BCCL itself by constituting an Age Determination Committee. The matter was pending before the Age Determination Committee and the age of superannuation on the basis of the recorded date of birth of the employee came and he was made to retire with effect from 31st July 2004. It is relevant to mention here that the Dy. Chief Personal Manager, Area-IX and the General Manager, Area-IX being convinced of the genuineness of the claim of the employee, had recommended the employee''s case for necessary correction in the entry concerning his date of birth on 17th January 2005. The employee since dead, his wife preferred a writ petition wherein after considering the facts in detail, the learned Single Judge reached to the conclusion that the Appellant/Respondent should have corrected the date of birth and since the employee has now died, the Respondent/writ Petitioner is entitled to the monetary benefits.

It would have been a hard case if the employee himself would not have pursued the remedy which was made available to him by the employer/Appellant themselves and there is a procedure for correction of date of birth by constituting an Age Determination Committee and because of the retirement of the employee, the right of the employee was not lost.

The recommendation of the competent persons about the correction in the age recorded in the service book of employee is also relevant fact.

In the background of this case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

At this juncture, learned Counsel for the Appellant pointed out that the employee''s son also preferred a writ petition for getting compassionate appointment and that was dismissed by this Court. According to the learned Counsel for the Respondent, the son of the employee also preferred L.P.A. and the son could not get the compassionate appointment only because of the reasons that without correction in the date of birth, enhancing the period of service of the employee beyond his date of death, he could not have become entitled to the compassionate appointment and therefore, he suffered because of that being not corrected in time.

Be that as it may, we are not concerned with that. We are only concerned with the impugned order and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that nothing wrong has been committed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the benefit to the Respondent / Petitioner. The appeal has no force and hence dismissed.