Shambhu Nath Mandal vs The Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.—Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner is agitating his grievances in the present writ application as he is said to have been retired about six months prior to his natural date of retirement, as per date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate i.e. 5th October 1953. The petitioner is said to have been retired on 31st April 2013 treating him to be 60 years of age by reckoning his date of birth as 8th April 1953.

According to the petitioner, he passed matriculation exam in the year 1972, as per certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board (Annexure-1). He entered the service of the respondent on 14th April 1978 on the post of Piece Rated Worker, annexure-2 is the identity card showing the date of appointment of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he was promoted as Clerk on 21st September 1982 (Annexure-3) which could only have been done by accepting that he was a matriculate. Thereafter, further financial up-gradation were granted to him vide Annexure-4 dated 10th May 2003 as also by Annexure-5 dated 18th April 2005 by the respondent-Steel Authority of India Limited. However, when the superannuation notice was about to be issued, he came to know about the incorrect date of birth recorded by the respondent and chose to move this Court in writ petition vide WPS No. 6614/2012. The said writ petition was disposed of on 23rd November 2012 giving directions to the respondent to decide the petitioner''s representation within a stipulated period on the basis of the entire service records and documents furnished by him. The petitioner however has been retired on 30th April 2013 itself and the reasoned order rejecting his claim has been passed on 14th June 2013 which is impugned as Annexure-10 to the present writ application. Based on these facts, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matriculation certificate is sacrosanct document of reckoning the age of an employee and has also been relied in several judgments including the Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Kamta Pandey Vs. B.C.C.L. and Others, . The said judgment has also been followed in successive judgments rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arjun Prasad Singh Vs. Indian Iron and Steel Company as also in the case of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Others Vs. Gopal Prasad Singh, . Therefore, according to the petitioner, the impugned order is totally in teeth of the legal position settled by virtue of such judgments and by any stretch of imagination, his date of birth could not have been assessed by the Medical Board in the year 1978 as 8th April 1953. In any case, he was 25 years of age in the year 1978 even by reckoning of medical assessment of the petitioner''s age and the Matriculation Certificate. However, the respondent instead of treating the date of birth in the matriculation certificate, has chosen to treat the date of birth assessed by the Medical Board for superannuating him.

Counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned order has been passed taking into account the document signed by the petitioner himself at the time of entry in service which recorded his age as 25 years upon assessment by the Medical Board at the relevant point of time. The petitioner has however sought correction at the fag end of his service which need not be allowed. The respondent having considered every aspect of the matter, rejected the representation of the petitioner in proper and justified manner by the impugned reasoned order at Annexure-10.

Having heard counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record, this Court is of the view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed for the following reasons:

The petitioner admittedly had passed the matriculation exam in the year 1972 before he entered the service under the respondent on 14th April 1978. Vide annexure-3 dated 21st September 1982 he was granted promotion to the post of Clerk from the original post of Piece Rated Worker which could only be done if the petitioner was treated as Matriculate.

Respondent seems to have justified their stand on the basis of the assessment made by the Medical Board in 1978 adjudging the age of the petitioner as 25 years. Even reckoning the petitioner''s date of birth as 8th April 1953 or 05th October 1953, the petitioner would have been certainly 25 years of age in the year 1978. When the petitioner had passed the matriculation exam in 1972 and the respondent have also taken into account this fact in giving him promotion after his original appointment to the higher post, there was no reason for the respondent to not treat the actual date of birth recorded in the matriculation exam as sacrosanct for the purpose of his service. Respondent however have chosen to take a very arbitrary point of view in going by the age assessed by the Medical Board i.e. 25 years on date of entry in service treating his date of birth as 8th April 1953.

Matriculation certificate has been treated to be a substantive document for the purpose of reckoning the date of birth of an employee. In the judgments relied upon by the petitioner, same view has also been taken and re-affirmed by the Full Bench of this Court and reiterated further in subsequent judgments.

In that view of the matter, the decision of the respondent not to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 05th October 1953, does not seem to be sustainable in law as well as on facts and it is arbitrary and unreasonable. The petitioner however has been made to retire on 30th April 2013 itself about six months prior to his natural date of retirement. In such circumstances, while setting aside the impugned order dated 14th June 2013 contained in Annexure-10 to this writ application, respondent are directed to pay the salary last drawn by the petitioner at the time of retirement till he reached the age of 60 years reckoning his date of birth as 05th October 1953. Let such payment be made within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid manner.