Joiddha Prasad Sahu vs South Eastern Coal Field Ltd. and Others

Pritinker Diwaker, J.—Present petition relates to correction in date of birth of the petitioner who was an employee of SECL and retired on 30.6.2008 from the post of Pump Khalasi. According to the petitioner, his correct date of birth is 25.6.1952 whereas in the service book the same has wrongly been mentioned as 1.7.1948. According to him, sometime in November 2003 he came to know about wrong date of birth being mentioned in his service record and therefore on 12.11.2003 he made a representation (Annexure P-1) for correction. According to him, he has also submitted copy of the primary examination certificate (Annexure P-2) in which also his date of birth is mentioned as 25.6.1952. Petitioner has also filed copy of the transfer certificate and the extract of the school register showing that his date of birth is 25.6.1952. According to the petitioner, earlier also he had filed a writ petition before this Court (W.P. No. 162/2008) which was disposed of with a direction that the age determination committee should look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the age determination committee has passed the impugned order (Annexure P-5) in a cryptic and mechanical manner without assigning any reason and thereby rejected his representation, he submits that the age determination committee was under obligation to consider all aspects of the case and pass a detailed order in view of 1.1.76. By way of rejoinder also, the petitioner has filed annexure P-7 showing that his educational qualification is 7th standard and therefore before the age determination committee he has submitted the mark sheet of 7th class and the same ought to have been considered and the petitioner under no circumstance could submit the mark sheet of Higher Secondary as he has not taken education up to that standard.

Replying to the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner, it has been argued by the counsel for the respondents that the impugned order dated 1.9.2008 is merely a communication to the petitioner that his date of birth has been found as 1.7.1948. He has also referred to the additional document i.e. the report of the Apex Medical Board (Annexure R-1) given after considering all aspects of the case of the petitioner and then coming to the conclusion that his date of birth is 1.7.1948. During argument, counsel for the respondents has also shown the original service record of the petitioner.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

From the document of Annexure R-1 it is clear that the petitioner was also produced before the Medical Board, his radiological test was conducted and ultimately he was found to be above 60 years of age. Further, before the age determination committee the petitioner had produced the duplicate copy of the mark sheet of primary school examination (Annexure P-2) and transfer certificate (Annexure P-3). From the mark sheet of primary school examination (Annexure P-2) it is apparent that it was obtained in the year 2001 as on the top of said document year 2001 has been printed which after being scored has been written as 1966. Transfer certificate (Annexure P-3) has been issued on 28.12.2002. Though in these two documents date of birth of the petitioner has been shown as 25.6.1952 and they have been considered by the age determination committee before arriving at the conclusion that the same cannot be believed and that correct date of birth of the petitioner is 1.7.1948. Though, the age determination committee has not passed a very elaborate order while dealing with the factual aspects of the case, considering the facts and circumstances of the case no fault can be found with the order impugned. Counsel for the respondent has also shown the entire service record of the petitioner and from the same also it appears that his date of birth is 1.7.1948.

It is well settled that an employee will not be permitted to apply for change of date of birth at the fag end of his service career and that correction in government records on the basis of which the government servant got the service cannot be allowed to be changed just a few years before his retirement or at the fag end of his service career.

Having thus considered all the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is of the considered opinion that the order impugned informing the petitioner that this date of birth mentioned in Form B as 1.7.1948 is correct and there appears to be no reason for this Court to interfere with the same. In the result, the petition being without substance is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed as such.