Mathura Prasad Bouri vs M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited

Mr. Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - Notice of superannuation dated 09.02.2014 compelled the petitioner to approach this Court for a direction upon the respondents to correct his date of birth in service records.

Heard.

The petitioner joined Salanpur Colliery as Minor Roader on 02.06.1978 under the respondent-Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL). He was transferred to Katras Area Colliery in September, 1982. Service-excerpts of the petitioner vide Annexure-2 was served upon him which was signed by the competent authority as well as the petitioner on 20.05.1987. Notice of superannuation was issued on 09.02.2014, intimating him that he would superannuate from service w.e.f 01.06.2014, treating his date of birth as 16.05.1954. Aggrieved, the petitioner submitted a representation on 21.03.2014 for a copy of Form-B. The petitioner asserts that in spite of several requests Form-B was not supplied to him and in the meantime, he was forced to superannuate from service.

Referring to service-excerpts vide Annexure-2 the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date of birth of the petitioner which was originally recorded as 04.01.1957 was unilaterally altered to 16.05.1954 without any notice to the petitioner. It is contended that respondent-BCCL communicated the aforesaid decision to the petitioner only through notice of superannuation dated 09.02.2014 and thus, the present is not a case in which the petitioner has raised a claim for correction of his date of birth at the fag end of service.

Per contra, Mr. Arpan Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BCCL, submits that the date of birth of the petitioner which was initially recorded in his service-excerpts of Katras Colliery as 04.01.1957 was a mistake and on verification from the original Form-B of Salanpur Colliery his date of birth was found to be 16.05.1954 and accordingly, the notice of superannuation dated 09.02.2014 was served upon him.

In compliance of order dated 20.10.2016, the original book containing Form-B of as many as 500 employees prepared at Salanpur Colliery has been produced in the Court.

The petitioner has pleaded that at the time of his appointment he was a Matriculate and he had submitted his Matriculation Certificate, on the basis of which his date of birth must be taken as 04.01.1957. However, on scrutiny of the materials on record, I find that the stand taken by the petitioner is false. Responding to notice of superannuation dated 09.02.2014, the petitioner submitted application on 21.03.2014 for supply of a copy of Form-B. In the said application, nowhere he has claimed that his actual and correct date of birth is 04.01.1957. He has also not stated that at the time of his appointment on 02.06.1978 he was a Matriculate and a copy of Matriculation Certificate was submitted by him to the employer. Further, the original book of Form-B produced in the Court discloses that his date of birth is recorded as 16.05.1954. There is no cutting or over-writing in the original Form-B of the petitioner at Salanpur Colliery. Apparently, petitioner has taken a false plea and on this ground alone the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with cost.

In "State of U.P. and Others v. Gulaichi (Smt)", reported in (2003) 6 SCC 483 a case in which the employee applied for correction of date of birth as recorded in service book at the verge of retirement, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

" Before any such direction is issued or declaration made, the court or the Tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of the date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application has to be filed, then such application must be within at least a reasonable time. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove about the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service-book. In many cases it is a part of the strategy on the part of such public servants to approach the court or the Tribunal on the eve of their retirement, questioning the correctness of the entries in respect of their date of birth in the service-books. By this process, it has come to the notice of this Court that in many cases, even if ultimately their applications are dismissed, by virtue of interim orders they continue for months, after the date of superannuation. The court or the Tribunal must, therefore, be slow in granting an interim relief or continuation in service, unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated, but if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and thereby caused injustice to his immediate junior."

The materials brought on record indicate that petitioner''s date of birth, which was recorded at the time of his employment in original Form-B maintained at Salanpur Colliery, was recorded at his instance as 16.05.1954. Moreover, he did not challenge the aforesaid entry in Form-B. Only on the basis of entry in Form-B prepared in 1987, in which his date of birth is recorded as 04.01.1957 on the basis of Matriculation Certificate, he has raised a dispute. The said entry was corrected on the basis of undisputed Form-B entries prepared at Salanpur Colliery. In the said record, there is no mention of Matriculation Certificate. The petitioner must be held bound by entry in the earlier Form-B. At this stage, the respondent-BCCL was not required to verify the genuineness of the Matriculation Certificate or to enquire into the reasons why date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate was not entered in Form-B prepared at Salanpur Colliery. Moreover, presently it is enough for rejecting the claim of the petitioner that he has failed to plead specific date, time, place, authority etc. if he had submitted his Matriculation Certificate at the time of appointment. In the aforesaid facts, the petitioner cannot contend that the dispute in respect of his date of birth has not been raised by him at the fag end of service.

The learned counsel for respondent-BCCL has informed the Court that the petitioner has been paid all retiral benefits.

I find no merit in the writ petition and, accordingly it is dismissed.