Islam Mian vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd & Ors

In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has sought for direction upon the respondents to produce the Form-B Register and for

correction of date of birth as per entry made in statutory Form-B Register.

The brief facts, as depicted in the writ application, is that petitioner was employed as a ''Dresser'' under the respondent company. At the time of

appointment the petitioner gave his date of birth as 01.07.1951 and on the basis of date of birth furnished by the petitioner, the petitioner was

served with service excerpts in the year 1987 in which the date of birth was rightly entered as 01.07.1951 as per Annexure-1 to the writ

application. It has been averred that initially the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 02.06.1947 and when the error was brought to the

notice of the respondents the same has been corrected as 01.07.1951. The petitioner was subsequently issued identity card which also shows his

date of birth 01.07.1951 as evident from Annexure-2. In the C.M.P.F records, the date of birth of the petitioner has been entered as 01.07.1951

and even in the statutory Form-B register which is maintained by the respondents, the date of birth of the petitioner has been entered as

01.07.1951. On the basis of documents namely N.E.I.S the date of birth of the petitioner has been entered as 02.06.1947 and on the basis of the

same the petitioner was compelled to retire on 30.06.2007. Being aggrieved by the discrepancy made in Form-B register and N.E.I.S, the

petitioner submitted representations before the respondent authorities vide Annexure-3 series, which fell on deaf ears. Being aggrieved by inaction

of the respondents, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his

grievance.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that the action of the respondents in not correcting the date of birth, in spite of

repeated reminders, amounts to arbitrary exercise of power. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been

compelled to superannuate from an anterior date prior to his actual date of retirement.

Repudiating the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the counter affidavit it

has been stated that initially petitioner was appointed on 02.08.1971 as Dresser with the respondent company. The old and original Form-B

Register of the East Katras Colliery prepared at the time of appointment of the petitioner did not record his date of birth. Though, petitioner had

affixed his thumb impression on the old and original Form-B Register but he did not disclose his date of birth, though he was under statutory duty

to do so. This is a practice commonly adopted by errant workmen to gain flexibility to manipulate the entry regarding their date of birth

subsequently. The copy of Form-B Register is annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. Due to proliferation of age disputes, the service

record committee meeting held on 20.08.1987, 08.03.1988 and 09.03.1988 decided to find out the dimension of the problem with this end in

view, the subsidiary company were advised to issue notice of excerpts from the service records of the employee in duplicate, requesting the

employees to return a copy to management as a token of receipt. In case they had any objection with regard to the service particulars, they should

indicate the same in the space provided for in the proforma and accordingly, service excerpt was prepared and was issued to the petitioner. Any

service particulars not available with the respondent-company were left blank. In the column regarding date of birth, it was marked N.A/ Not

Available by the company. The petitioner himself filled 02.06.1947 as his date of birth and signed on the said service excerpt. It was on this basis

that 02.06.1947 has also been recorded in the NEIS record of the respondent company maintained at its headquarter as per Annexure-B to the

counter affidavit. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is guilty of tampering with the service excerpt subsequently by changing his date of

birth to 01.07.1951 which has rightly been ignored by the respondent- company. It is also further submitted that the petitioner has already retired

on 30.06.2007 and is guilty of raising dispute relating to his date of birth at the fag end of his service.

Learned counsel for the respondents apart from reiterating the submission made in the counter affidavit, has submitted that petitioner has raised

the disputed question pertaining to date of birth, at the fag end of service, hence the claim is not entertainable, in view of the settled position of law.

Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the writ petition containing certain disputed facts, which cannot be adjudicated in a writ

application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned

orders, due to the following facts and reasons:

(I) The petitioner having been appointed on 02.08.1971 as a Dresser in the respondent company, no date of birth was recorded at the time of

entering into service, but subsequently the petitioner filled up the service excerpts by mentioning the date of birth as 02.06.1947 which has been

recorded in the NEIS record of the respondent- company maintained at its headquarter as per Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, which has

been scored through and corrected as 01.07.1951. By alteration of date of birth, the petitioner is guilty of tampering with the service excerpts

because he is the ultimate beneficiary of the said alteration. The alteration of date of birth by the petitioner in the service excerpts has been ignored

by the respondent company.

(II) The dispute as to the date of birth at the fag end of the service career is fairly well settled. The Hon''ble Apex Court in cases of Union of India

vs. Harnam Singh reported in (1993) 2 SCC 162, Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Others vs. Dinabandhu Majumdar & Another reported in (1995) 4

SCC 172, State of Maharashtra & Another vs Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble & Ors. reported in (2010) 14 SCC 423 and State of Madhya

Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Premlal Shrivas reported in (2011) 9 SCC 664 have been pleased to consistently hold that the Court should be loath to issue

direction for correction of date of birth at the fag end of the service career.

In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.