Kishore Kumar Prasad vs M/s Central Coalfields Limited And Ors

The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the letter dated 19.04.2016 (Annexure-4), whereby and whereunder, the respondent No.2 rejected the claim of the petitioner for correction of his date of birth as per Matriculation Certificate.

The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Driver in Manki Colliery under N.K. Area of the respondent No. 1 on 09.11.1977 and at the time of his appointment, the petitioner was non-matric. Thereafter, with due permission from the respondent No.1, the petitioner appeared in Secondary School Examination held in March, 1991 and cleared the same in Second Division. On 03.09.1991, a provisional certificate of the Matriculation was issued to the petitioner and pursuant to the same, the petitioner informed the respondents vide his representation dated 12.09.1991. It is further the case of the petitioner that in view of the matriculation certificate, the petitioner also took admission in the Diploma Course in Mech. Engineering for the Session, 1992 in Polytechnic Institute, Ranchi, however, the petitioner could not complete the said course. It is specific case of the petitioner that as per the date of birth 22.02.1955 as mentioned in the service excerpts, the respondents contemplated to retire the petitioner on 28.02.2015 itself. Aggrieved by the same, he represented before the respondents on 06.03.2014 for correction of the date of birth on the basis of Matriculation Certificate, showing his date of birth as 22.02.1959, but no heed was paid on the said representation. Aggrieved thereto, he approached this Court, by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.1544 of 2014 and same was disposed of vide order dated 08.09.2015 with a direction to move before the respondents for correction of date of birth and respondents may considered the same in accordance with law. As the order of this Hon'ble Court was not complied with, the petitioner preferred a Cont. Application being Cont. (Cvl.) Case No.242 of 2016, same was also disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to challenge the reasoned order as during the pendency of said Cont. application, the respondents have disposed of the representation of the petitioner, by passing a reasoned order dated 19.04.2016, which is under challenge in the instant writ petition.

Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the matriculation certificate, the petitioner is entitled for correction of date of birth mentioned in the service excerpts and entry of the date of birth as mention in the matriculation certificate. Learned counsel further submits that as per the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation, the petitioner had also taken admission in Diploma Course though he could not complete the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner places heavy reliance on Instruction No. 76 of the NCWA and celebrated judgment of this Court in case of Kamta Pandey Vs. BCCL & Ors. reported in 2007 (3) JCR 681 and submits that it is a fit case in which the case of the petitioner should be considered for correction of date of birth.

Per contra, no counter-affidavit has been filed. However, Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that in no way, the petitioner is entitled for correction of date of birth. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court towards para 9 of the writ petition and submits that in view of passing of matriculation examination, he represented before the respondents for correction of date of birth in the service excerpts, but from perusal of Annexure1 and 1/1, it appears that never any representation was made in the year, 1991 for correction of date of birth rather same was for the purpose of entering in the service excerpts. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner first time represented before the respondents on 06.03.2014 for correction of date of birth when he was at verge of retirement i.e. at the fag end of service. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on a reported judgment in case of BCCL Vs. Chhota Birsa Uranw reported in 2014 (12) SCC 570 and submits that time and again, this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down that no correction can be made in the date of birth at the fag end of service.

Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of records, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition on the following grounds :

Admittedly, the petitioner for the first time has represented before the respondents for correction of date of birth on 06.03.2014 and after serving the respondents more than 37 years and at the fag end of service as he was going to superannuate in the year, 2015.

The petitioner passed matriculation much after his joining i.e. he has joined in the year, 1977 and passed Matriculation in the year, 1991, if at all date of birth mentioned in the Matriculation was correct, the petitioner could have brought to the knowledge of the respondents at that time itself but the same was not done rather, the petitioner wants to take the benefit of his own mistake by duping the respondents.

In case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Chhota Birsa uranw (supra) , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that no correction can be made in the date of birth at the fag end of service.

Judgment relied upon the petitioner i.e Kamta Pandey (supra) and also of Instruction No. 76 of NCWA are of no help to him.

In view of the aforesaid rules, observations and judicial pronouncement, I do not find any merit in the instant writ petition. Resultantly, writ petition stands dismissed.