Shri Ram Singh vs B.C.C.L. and Others

Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.—The Petitioner has prayed for a direction on the Respondents to correct the date of birth and father''s name of the Petitioner in his service records, in accordance with his matriculation certificate, which has been wrongly denied by order dated 5th February, 2004.

It has been stated that the Petitioner had passed matriculation examination in the year 1969. In the matriculation certificate, his date of birth has been clearly recorded as 2nd July, 1950. The Petitioner was appointed in the services of the RespondentBCCL on 11th October, 1971.

At the time of his employment, the Petitioner had submitted his matriculation certificate in support of his date of birth. The Petitioner was under the bona fide impression that his date of birth must have been correctly recorded in the service records in accordance with his matriculation certificate. In the year 1988, the Petitioner was supplied a copy of the service excerpt in which his date of birth was wrongly recorded as 1st July, 1946 and father''s name was incorrectly mentioned. The Petitioner, thereafter, immediately raised objection to the said wrong entry and requested for correcting his date of birth as also the name of father in accordance with his matriculation certificate, but no order was passed on the Petitioner''s representation.

Thereafter, the Petitioner had filed writ petition in the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench, as then was, being CWJC No. 2565 of 2000 (R), which was allowed by order dated 24th January, 2002, directing the Respondents to correct the Petitioner''s date of birth and name of his father in accordance with the matriculation certificate. The Respondents preferred appeal against the said order, being L.P.A. No. 248 of 2002. The said appeal was disposed of by order dated 4th August, 2003, directing the Respondents to consider the Petitioner''s representation and pass a reasoned order. The Respondents have purportedly passed the impugned order in compliance of the said order of this Court dated 4th August, 2003, whereby they have refused to correct the date of birth.

The main ground taken by the Respondents for refusing the Petitioner''s prayer is that his date of birth was recorded as 1st July, 1946 in Register Form B, which bears the signature of the Petitioner. In the service excerpts and other records also, the said date of birth of the Petitioner was mentioned, but the Petitioner had never raised any objection earlier. Since the date of birth has been recorded in the statutory Form B Register as 1st July, 1946, the same cannot be changed.

Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submitted that in Implementation Instruction No. 76 of the National Coal Wage AgreementIII applicable to the Respondent company and the Petitioner, specific provision has been given for correcting the date of birth according to the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate. Admittedly, the Petitioner is matriculate and he was appointed on 11th October, 1971 on the basis of his matriculation certificate.

It has been clearly provided in ClauseA(i) of the said Implementation Instruction No. 76 that in the case of appointees who have passed matriculation or equivalent examination the date of birth recorded in the said certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances. Learned Counsel further submitted in Kamta Pandey Vs. B.C.C.L. and Others, , the Full Bench of this Court has upheld the said provision and answered similar question, holding 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 records as both the parties are governed by Implementation Instruction No. 76 of National Coal Wage AgreementIII".

The said provision of Rule and settled law have not been disputed by the Respondents.

In view of the above, I find that the reason assigned in the impugned order dated 5th February, 2004 (Annexure7), denying the Petitioner''s claim of correction in the date of birth and his father''s name on the basis of matriculation certificate, is contrary to the prescribed Rule and the said decision of the Full Bench of this Court and the same cannot sustain.

This writ petition is allowed. The order dated 5th February, 2004 (Annexure7) is hereby quashed. The Respondents are directed to correct the Petitioner''s date of birth and name of his father in accordance with his matriculation certificate issued by the Examination Board and pass appropriate consequential order within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.