Ram Naresh Singh vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Others

M.Y. Eqbal, J.—This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent undirected against the judgment dated 1.7.2006 passed in W.P.S. No. 747 of 2004, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ application holding that at the fag end of retirement the date of birth of the appellant cannot be corrected.

The appellant filed the aforementioned writ petition for quashing the letter dated 12.11.2003, by which the appellant was communicated that he was to superannuate with effect from 30.4.2004 on attaining the age of 60 years in view of his date of birth as 4.4.1954.

The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:

The appellant was initially appointed as general mazdoor under respondent-BBCL. The appellant''s case is that at the initial appointment he submitted his matriculation certificate where his date of birth was recorded as 1.1.1951. In the service excerpts issued by the respondents, the age was indicated as 42 years as on 4.4.1986. The appellant said to have filed application for correction of his date of birth by filing representation dated 30.5.2000, which was followed by several representations. It was contended that although the respondents got the date of birth checked and verified from different sources including the Examination Board but in stead of correcting the date of birth, the impugned letter of superannuation was issued. The said writ application was contested by the respondents on the ground, inter alia, that in Form-B register opened after appointment of the appellant and in service excerpts the date of birth of the appellant was shown as 1.1.1951. The learned Single Judge took the view that in the letter of appointment issued in 1986 the age was mentioned as 42 years as on 4.4.1986 and the appellant accepted the hitter of appointment and gave his joining. The appellant also put his signature in Form-B register. On these grounds the learned Single Judge held that the date of birth, as claimed by the appellant, cannot be corrected at the fag end of the retirement.

We have heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned Counsel for the respondents.

Admittedly, the appellant was initially appointed in 1996. From the matriculation certificate, it appears that he appeared in the examination in the year 1970. In the matriculation certificate his date of birth has been shown as 01.01.1951. It has also not been disputed that after the service excerpt was supplied to the appellant, he filed representation for correction of the date of birth. It further appears that the authority of the respondent on receipt of the matriculation certificate sent it to the Board of Secondary Education, Uttar Pradesh for verification. The Secretary, Secondary Board of Education sent a letter to the respondents confirming the genuineness of the matriculation certificate. In the aforesaid premises, evidently in the matriculation certificate the date of birth was entered as 01.01.1951.

In course of argument, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant drawn our attention to the certified standing order and submitted that the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate has to be entered in the service book. We find force in the submission of the learned Counsel.

Having regard to the fact that the appellant passed matriculation examination before the date of his initial appointment, then the date of birth shown in the matriculation certificate shall have to be taken into consideration.

Recently, a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kamta Pandey Vs. B.C.C.L. and Others, held that the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate duly authenticated by the Education Board is a conclusive proof of age and no other records including service record.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are, therefore, of the view that the age shown in the matriculation certificate shall prevail over the age shown in the other records.

For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment passed by learned Single Judge is set aside.