Md. Zubair vs Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Others

Amareshwar Sahay, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

Prayer in this writ petition is to quash the order as contained in Annexure-4 dated 19.6.1999 by the Dy. Director of Personnel, Dhanbad Area Electricity Board, Dhanbad, whereby the claim of the petitioner to treat his date of birth as 23.1.1938 has been rejected.

The petitioner had moved this Court earlier in CWJC No. 1517 of 1997 (R), which was disposed of by order dated 20.5.1998. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows :--

"The date of birth mentioned in the service book was being doubted by the authorities as some sort of marks were there, but the same has not been investigated as to how those marks were there. If there were any confusion in the mind of the authorities of the BSEB, they should have made an enquiry after an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, but without basing on the service book or without hinging the date of birth in the service book, on the basis of leave accounts register, the petitioner was made to superannuate, when he was to retire in the month of January, 1998 as per the date of birth mentioned in the service book.

Total arbitrary procedure has been adopted by the BSEB authorities on the face of it. The date of birth without being changed in the service book after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, petitioner would not have been made to superannuate prematurely. Hence, Annexure-5-is definitely illegal on the face of its as it not only violated the natural justice but also the established principle of law. Now, practically, the petitioner is not going to be taken into service as admitted position remains that even if the petitioner''s date of birth is 25.1.1938 then also the petitioner is to retire in the month of January, 1998 but for prematured retirement the petitioner has definitely lost consequential reliefs, pay etc. to January, 1998. Annexure-5 is hereby quashed and the BSEB authorities are hereby directed to make enquiry after giving an opportunity of hearing regarding fixing of date of birth unless they rely on the date of birth mentioned in the service book as per general law without any other standing orders of the BSEB, then they can proceed for an enquiry after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the same should be concluded within three months next from the date of presentation of a copy of this order from the side of the petitioner before the respondent No. 2. If the petitioner''s contention does not find favour then the respondent No. 2 must pass speaking order and if it is found that the petitioner was to retire in the month of January, 1998 then all consequential benefits from the date when he had been prematurely retired should be made available to the petitioner within three months next thereafter."

Therefore the dispute is as to whether the date of birth of the petitioner is 23.1.1933 or 23.1.1938?

In view of the order of the High Court, the respondents made enquiry regarding cutting and overwriting in the date of birth in the service record of the petitioner.

The matter regarding overwriting in recording the date of birth was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna for an expert opinion. The expert''s opinion in that regard as it appears from Annexure-3 was as follows :--

"REPORT MISC. 34/98

Received first part of Service Book of Md. Zubair, retired Line Inspector from General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Dhanbad Area Electricity Board, Dhanbad vide his letter No. 3823 dated 13.11.1998 for examination of overwriting in date of birth. RESULT OF EXAMINATION

At the first page Sl. 5 of the first part of Service Book of Md. Zubair, retired Line Inspector, in the date of birth "25th Jan 1938", overwriting has been detected on the last existing digit ''8'' of the year but no digit other than ''8'' could be detected thereon."

It appears that the concerned authorities on consideration of the report of Expert and on consideration of other relevant materials, by a reasoned order (Annexure-4) rejected the claim of the petitioner.

In my view, the approach adopted by the respondent authority and the reasons assigned by him is correct and justified, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

However, with regard to the payment of arrears of retrial dues, the petitioner is directed to make representation before the competent authority within two weeks from today. If such representation is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be disposed of on its own merit within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of such representation and if any amount is found payable to the petitioner, the same must be paid to the petitioner.