Shiv Prasad vs The Western Coal Field Ltd. and Others

Hon''ble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi

The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that his right date of birth was not recorded in the relevant document and only on the basis of wrong recording of date of birth in the statutory document, i.e. Form-B, the petitioner is sought to retire w.e.f. 31st December, 2012. It is contended that the representations in this respect were made but since the same are not considered, the petitioner is required to approach this Court. The contentions of the petitioner are that he was initially appointed in the services of the respondents at a different place. After closer of the Mine where initially the petitioner was appointed, he was transfer to other Mine. At that time a document was issued in which the date of birth of the petitioner was not rightly mentioned, on the other hand there was manipulation. The father''s name of the petitioner was also not correctly mentioned. Only on the basis of such documents, the entries in the date of birth of the petitioner were made. When he came to know about such a fact, he made a representation annexing with it the certificate of educational qualification where the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned. The said educational certificates were got verified by the authorities of the respondents but even then no action was taken for correction of date of birth and ultimately it was stated that the date of birth as recorded in the statutory documents is correct. Since dispute was required to be referred to the authorities or before the Age Determination Committee in terms of the statutory agreement, but no action was taken in this respect, right of the petitioner is jeopardised, therefore, he is required to approach this Court. It is contended that respondents are liable to be commanded to make correction in the date of birth of the petitioner.

Upon issuance of the notice of the writ petition, a return has been filed by the respondents and they have contended that since there is no discrepancy in the date of birth recorded in respect of the petitioner in the statutory documents, there is no requirement of referring the matter to the Age Determination Committee. This fact was well within the knowledge of the petitioner that his date of birth has been recorded to be 01.01.1953 as in subsequent declaration, the said date of birth was also reflected, which the petitioner has accepted to be correct, therefore, at this belated stage no interference is called for. It is contended that once the enquiry in this respect was conducted, it was found that the date of birth of the petitioner is tallying with the date of birth, which was recorded in the initial document when the petitioner was appointed, no correction in the date of birth is permissible as per law and, therefore, the claim made by the petitioner is misconceived. The petition deserves to be dismissed.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties at length and after minutely examining the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that there was some sort of error committed in mentioning of the date of birth of the petitioner in the statutory document. In fact the statutory document (Annexure P-1) was got prepared only on the strength of a document, which was issued by the authorities at the time of transfer of the petitioner. Apparently, there was some sort of manipulation in the date of birth of the petitioner. The father''s name of the petitioner was wrongly recorded as Sushil Chandra but after correction the right name was recorded in subsequent Form-B. If the correction of the name of father of the petitioner could be done, at least the date of birth, where there was some sort of manipulation in the initial document, which was prepared at the time of transfer of the petitioner or even at the time when initially he was appointed way back in the year 1974, could have been ascertained and at least some sort of enquiry could have been conducted in that respect. It is not in dispute that such documents placed by the petitioner are not genuine documents as they are not disputed by the respondents. Once the date of birth recorded in the educational certificates of the petitioner was got verified from the school authorities by the respondents, it was necessary on their part to take such documents in consideration and pass suitable orders in this respect. One more fact is that the petitioner was issued a certificate under the Mines Act, 1952 by the competent authority categorically mentioning the date of birth of the petitioner to be 29th October, 1955. Said document was issued on 08.05.1980. At least this document could have been verified. Again when the document was issued on 18.09.1981 under the Mines Act, 1952 and under the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, the date of birth of the petitioner was categorically recorded to be 29th October, 1955. This being so, at least the matter could have been referred before the Age Determination Committee for ascertainment of the correct date of birth of the petitioner in terms of the statutory agreement. This being so, refusing to refer the matter to the competent Committee as per the agreement cannot be said to be just and proper.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has heavily put his reliance in the case of G.M., Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., West Bengal Vs. Shib Kumar Dushad and Others, and has contended that the law laid-down by the Apex Court makes it clear that in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the decision of the Management cannot be called in question with respect to the verification of the date of birth. The law laid-down by the Apex Court is examined. It is not that the burden of proof was not discharged by the petitioner in appropriate manner. It has been pointed out by the petitioner that he started making the claim for correction in the date of birth soon after he came to know about the said fact. It is also clear from the documents available on record that on production of the educational certificate, the respondents-authorities themselves got the said certificate verified. The fact remains that the date of birth of the petitioner mentioned in the said certificate is squarely tallying with the date of birth recorded in the certificate issued in his favour under the Mines Act, 1952. There was no justified reasons to believe that such date of birth was erroneous. Further more, it was to be seen by the respondents that the documents on the basis of which they have prepared the statutory document, itself was manipulated with respect to the date of birth of the petitioner and there was scoring of the earlier date of birth recorded in respect of the petitioner and writing of a subsequent date of birth of the petitioner. That too the date of birth as recorded in the said document was 10.01.1953, which is not tallying with the date of birth recorded in the statutory document by the respondents subsequently. The father''s name of the petitioner was incorrectly shown in the earlier document, which was unilaterally corrected by the respondents in subsequent document. For all these reasons, the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the respondents in the case of G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., West Bengal (supra) is totally misconceived. The facts and circumstances as have come on record in this case are quite different than the case in G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., West Bengal (supra) and, therefore, the law laid-down by the Apex Court would not be applicable in the case in hand.

Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to hold an enquiry by referring the case of the petitioner before the Age Determination Committee in terms of the statutory agreement and to get the age of the petitioner determined in terms of the aforesaid agreement. The petitioner be allowed all the opportunities of producing the relevant documents in proof of his actual date of birth. The opportunity of hearing be granted to the petitioner in the said enquiry and after completing the enquiry in the manner indicated in the agreement, a decision be taken with respect to the claim of the petitioner for correction in the date of birth. The aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. The petitioner be allowed to continue in the employment till such decision is taken and communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. However, there shall be no order as to costs.