Tarapada Dhibar vs Coal India Ltd. and Others

Indra Prasanna Mukerji, J.—This is a very tricky age dispute concerning a worker of Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., the respondent No. 2. The question is whether the date of birth of this person is to be 1st July, 1953 or 5th November, 1959? The first annexure to the writ petition at page 17 is a certificate dated 5th November, 1953 issued by a Private Medical Practitioner of Dhanbad, certifying the above to be the date of birth of the writ petitioner.

It appears from the records of the second respondent, including service record books as produced by Mr. Haider, learned Counsel, that at least up to 1987 the date of birth of the writ petitioner in the records was entered as 1 st July, 1953 and those records were signed by him.

It is also on record that from that year onwards the write petitioner has been asserting that his date of birth was wrongly entered in the records of the second respondent and that it should be 5th November, 1959.

A reference may be made to his letter dated 17th August, 1987 which is P3 at page 21 of the writ petition. Thereafter, there are more representations but what is most important is the letter of the second respondent dated 6th March, 2012 being annexure R4 at page 17 of the reply. This is the internal correspondence of the second respondent. It shows that they realised that there may be some truth in the assertion of the writ petitioner. This is what was written:--

In the SRE issued during the year 1987 Sri Dhibar had mentioned that his original date of birth 11.05.1959 instead of the age as recorded in official record. The xerox copy of service record, service file & form ''B'' register are enclosed.

The matter is put up for kind perusal and further necessary advise into the matter.

Agent, Chapapur Colliary kindly see the matter and for further action please.

Action was contemplated. But no action was taken. Now the writ petitioner is to retire with the close of June 2013.

I am of the view that if the second respondent was convinced that action was to be taken on the basis of the writ petitioner''s assertion, they ought to have taken action. They should have taken a decision as to his date of birth. They have not done so.

I am of the opinion that the writ petitioner has raised some is evidence at least from 1987 that his date of birth should be 5th November, 1959. I think in the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondent No. 2 should be compelled to take action which they contemplated but did not take.

In those circumstances, I dispose of this writ application by directing the respondent No. 2 to get an age test done of the writ petitioner as expeditiously as possible in any Government Hospital at Dhanbad. If the result of the age test is that the writ petitioner''s date of birth is closer to 1959, his declared date of birth as 5th November, 1959 will be accepted by the respondent No. 2. On the contrary if the result of the age test is that the date of birth of the writ petitioner is closer to 1953 then his retirement on and from 1st July, 2013 will be confirmed by the second respondent. The second respondent will take a decision on the basis of the medical report by 15th July, 2013. A copy of the medical report should be made available to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner will retire as per his date of birth in the records but will be deemed to be continuing in service if the medical test reports are in his favour with all consequential benefits. All parties concerned to act on a signed photocopy of this order upon the usual undertakings.