Wahid Ansari vs Central Coalfields Ltd

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to correct the date of birth as mentioned in the service

excerpts as 8th October, 1960 as per the matriculation certificate.

The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that petitioner has entered into the services of the Central Coalfields Ltd. (for

short “CCL) on 06.09.1979 as per the scheme of voluntary retirement scheme. It is the case of the petitioner that he appeared in the matriculation

examination in the year 1979 as conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board but was unable to clear the said examination and subsequently, in

the year 1980 with the prior permission of the Organization where he was working, he appeared in the said examination once again and was declared

successful in the said examination. It is further case of the petitioner that later on, the petitioner was appointed as Munsi taking into consideration the

matriculation certificate in which the date of birth was mentioned as 8th October, 1960. The petitioner came to know from the service excerpts that

his date of birth has been mentioned as 16.05.1958, he made representation before the respondent-authorities in the year 1995 for correction of the

same but the same was not corrected and subsequently, also he made several representations before the respondent-authorities. It was only in the

year 2015 that it was communicated to the petitioner that his case for correction of date of birth has been rejected and as such, he rushed to the Court

by preferring the instant writ petition.

Mr. N.K. Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the respondent-authorities have illegally and arbitrarily not

considered the case of petitioner for correction in the date of birth. Mr. Sinha places heavy reliance on N.C.W.A.-III Implementation Instruction No.

76, the standing order of the Coal India Limited and submits that correction in the date of birth has to be made if it is based on matriculation certificate.

The respondents have not even considered even their own Implementation Instruction No.76 and in a whimsical manner have rejected the case of the

petitioner. Learned counsel further argues that 16.08.1958 is an imaginary date of birth and is not in consonance with any medical report.

Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. M.B. Lal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CCL vehemently opposes the contention

of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Lal argues that date of birth mentioned in the service excerpts has been duly acknowledged by the

petitioner. In the service register, the date of birth mentioned as 16.08.1958 has been accepted all along by the petitioner. Mr. Lal further argues that

Form ‘B’ is a statutory form which has force of law and cannot be given go-bye which also shows the date of birth as 16.08.1958 and the same

has been accepted by the petitioner by putting his thumb impression. In all the case of LTC, the petitioner has affirmed and approved his date of birth

as 16.08.1958 and has never disputed. It is only at the fag end of his service career i.e. at the time of his retirement, the petitioner has knocked the

door of this Court that too after 22 long years. No explanation has been given regarding delay and that can be a sufficient ground for dismissal of the

writ petition.Â

Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no case

is made out for interference on the following grounds:-

I) Petitioner has approached this Court for correction of the date of birth after 22 long years. Petitioner has knowledge about his date of birth in the

year 1995 itself but he preferred to knock the door of this Court only at the fag end of his service career.

II) The date of birth as mentioned in the service excerpts as 16.08.1958 has all along been accepted by the petitioner during his entire service career.

He has received the benefits of LTC approving his date of birth as 16.08.1958.

III) Form ‘B’ is an statutory form which has force of law that has been set at rest upto the Hon’ble Apex Court. This Hon’ble Court in

catena of decisions has taken into consider that the date of birth mentioned in the statutory Form ‘B’ cannot be changed at the fag end of the

service career. Reliance of the petitioner on I.I. No.-76 and the Full Bench’s Judgment is totally misconceived. I.I. No. 76 and Full Bench’s

judgment talk of matriculation certificate submitted prior to employment of an employee. In the instant case no certificate was submitted at the time of

employment or prior to that. It was only after employment, that the petitioner has obtained matriculation certificate mentioning his date of birth as

08.10.1960.

As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, no interference is warranted.

Resultantly, the writ petition merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed.