Sukumar Bagchi vs Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Others

D.G.R. Patnaik, J.—Heard the counsel for the parties.

The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to correct the entry of the petitioner''s date of birth in his service records in the Form-B Register after sending the petitioner, for assessment of his age, to the Apex Medical Board in accordance with Implementation Instruction No. 76, which is applicable in the case of the petitioner.

It appears from the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties that the petitioner was appointed in service of the respondents- company on 31.1.1973 and at the time of his appointment, his service record was opened in which his date of birth was recorded as 31.1.1948.

Sometime in 1987, pursuant to an understanding by the Joint Bi-Partite Consultative Committee, the respondent-company gave an opportunity to its employees to get the entires in their respective service records corrected. Accordingly, Form-A was issued to all the employees including the petitioner. Form-A has contained the excerpts of the petitioner''s service record. The objection raised against the entries made in the service excerpt was to be stated by the employees in the remarks column of the Form. The petitioner, raised his objection against the entry of his date of birth claiming that his date of birth was 28.7.1953.

On the aforesaid objection, the concerned authorities of the respondents had considered and had decided that the date of birth as mentioned in the Form-B Register is taken to be final as per the Age Assessment Committee. The decision so taken on the petitioner''s dispute was communicated to him by letter dated 10.8.1989 (Annexure-D).

Upon receipt of the aforesaid communication, the petitioner claims to have filed a representation on 27.9.1999, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition, but since no response was received by him from the respondents, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

Counsel for the petitioner would explain that in the light of the objection filed by the petitioner and in the light of the copy of admit card of primary school examination, which he had already produced, the respondents authorities ought to have considered the entry of his date of birth in Form-B Register to be in variation with the entry in the Admit Card and under such circumstances, ought to have referred the petitioner to the Apex Medical Board for assessment of his age, in accordance with the implementation Instruction No. 76. Learned Counsel adds further that though the respondents had claimed to have considered the petitioner''s objection and taken a decision thereon, but the petitioner was not given any opportunity to appear before the Age Assessment Committee and to submit/explain his case.

Counsel for the respondents submits, on the other hand, that this writ petition is not maintainable and is totally misconceived. Referring to the service experts (Annexure-2) and the objection recorded by the petitioner in the remarks column of Form-A, learned Counsel points out that in the objection, the petitioner has claimed his date of birth to be as 28.7.1953 whereas in the purported admit card of the primary final examination, which he had submitted along with his application dated 27.9.1999, the date of birth as recorded therein is 18.9.1952. The petitioner, according to the learned counsel, is himself not certain as to what is his actual date of birth.

Learned Counsel further adds that the petitioner has though claimed that the date of birth as entered in his service record is incorrect but has not produced any document along with his objection at the initial stage in support of his claim. The Age Assessment Committee had accordingly relied upon the date of birth in Form-B Register.

Learned Counsel adds further that though the decision on the petitioner''s objections was taken and communicated way back in 1989, but the petitioner did not raise any protest and after 14 years from the date of aforesaid decision he filed this writ petition. During pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has already retired from service. Learned Counsel submits that under such circumstances, the relief claimed by the petitioner being belated and made at the fag end of his service, cannot be allowed.

Upon hearing the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and upon going through the records, I find that the objection regarding entry of his date of birth was taken by the petitioner some time in April 1987, and a decision by the Age Assessment Committee was taken on the dispute raised and such decision was communicated to the petitioner in 1989 itself, but the petitioner did not raise any further protest promptly. The instant writ petition has been filed after more than 14 years from the date of decision taken on his objection. It appears that the petitioner had though taken objection initially in 1987, but he had not produced any school certificate or other relevant documents along with his objection. Such document by way of a school Admit Card, appears to have been produced almost after ten years after the date of communication of the decision taken by the Age Assessment Committee.

The circumstances under which the employee are required to refer to the Apex Medical Board, as envisaged in the Rule 76 of the implementation instructions, did not arise in the petitioner''s case and hence it was not obligatory on the part of the respondents to refer the petitioner to the medial Board. No other document was produced by the petitioner at the relevant time and the only document produced by the petitioner, is not in consonance with his own admission as made in his earlier objections. Furthermore, the claim for rectification of the date of birth appears to have been made by the petitioner much belatedly almost at the fag end of his service. The petitioner has already retired during pendency of the writ petition.

In the light of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.