Sadre Alam vs Chief Manager, Director and Another

S.K. Agnihotri, J.

Heard.

The petitioner, by this petition seeks a direction to the respondents to correct his date of birth as on ''1.1.1954'', instead of ''18.4.1950'', in the service record and to retire him from service, accordingly.

The brief facts, in nutshall, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Overman on 1.4.1973. At present the petitioner is working as Senior Overman at Rajnager Opencast Project, Annuppur. From the document relating to service record (Annexure P/1) it is apparent that the date of birth was recorded as on 18.4.1950. In the Sirdar''s certificate (Annexure P/2) and Overman''s Certificate (Annexure P/3), issued under the coal Mines Regulations, 1957, by the Chairman of the Board of Mining Examinations, the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as on 1st January, 1954 (1.1.1954). In the Scholar''s Register & Transfer Certificate (Annexure P/4), issued by the Principal, Shiv Prasad Narehi Higher Secondary School, Dihwa, District - Baliya (U.P.) the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as on 1.1.1954. the petitioner submitted various applications for correction of his date of birth (Annexure P/5). Thereafter, by order dated 7.3.2000 (Annexure P/6) the Chief Personal Manager, Hasdeo Area directed the Sub Area Manager to take appropriate steps to settle the dispute in regard to the date of birth of the petitioner Since no action was taken by the concerned authority, the petitioner again made various applications (Annexure P/7) and now, this writ petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that whenever any dispute arises regarding the date of birth then the respondents are under an obligation to get the case of the concerned person examined from the Age Determination Committee. In support of his submissions learned counsel rely on a decision of this Court in Tiwari Vs. South Eastern Coalfield Ltd. and Others, .

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there is no provision for referring the matter to the Age Determination Committee on the basis of the school certificate, produced as General Mazdoor Category in Ramnagar Colliery on 1.4.1973. As per the petitioner''s declaration his date of birth was registered in Form - B Register (Annexure R/1) as on 18.4.1950'' and the same was accepted by the petitioner at the time of his employment. Likewise, in the particulars of family (Annexure R/5), submitted by the petitioner on 26.5.1998, his date of birth was mentioned as on ''18.4.1950''. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

The Implementation Instruction No.76 provides procedure for determination/verification of age of employees. Clause (B) of Implementation Instruction No.76 provides Review Determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees, which reads as under:

(B) Review determination of the date of birth in respect of existing employees. i) a) In the case of the existing employees Matriculation Certificate or Higher secondary Certificate issued by the recognized Universities or Board or Middle Pass Certificate issued by the Board of Education and/or Department of Public Instruction and admit cards issued by the aforesaid Bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said Universities/Boards/ Institutions prior to the date of employment.

ii) b) Similarly, Mining Sirdarship, Winding Engine or similar other statutory certificates where the Manager had to certify the date of birth will be treated as authentic.

Provided that where both documents mentioned in (i) (a) and (i) (b) above are available, the date of birth recorded in (i) (a) will be treated as authentic.

ii) Wherever there is no variation records, such cases will not be reopened unless there is a very glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the Management after being satisfied on the merits of the case will take appropriate action for correction through Determination committee/Medical Board.

In clause (B) i) b) of Implementation Instruction No. 76 it is provided that Mining Sirdarship, Winding Engine or similar other statutory certificates where the Manager had to certify the date of birth will be treated as authentic. In the present case, admittedly, the Sirdar''s certificate (Annexure P/2) and Overman''s certificate (Annexure P/3), issued by the Chairman of the Board of Mining Examinations, mentioning date of the petitioner as on 1.1.1954, which appears to be supported by the school certificate (Annexure P/4).

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto., it is a case where there is glaring variation in several documents maintained and issued by the respondents/authorities. It appears to be a fit case which should be referred to the Age Determination Committee for considering the case of the petitioner, having regard to all the certificates and documents, as aforementioned.

For the reasons mentioned herein above, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to refer the dispute to the Age Determination committee to consider all the facts and pass a reasoned order with regard to the determination of the age of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No. order asto costs.