Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
B. Komaraiah vs The Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd. And ... on 31 March, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1992(2)ALT198
ORDER Sivaraman Nair, J.
1. Petitioner entered service as Munshi in the Shanthi Khani Mine of Singareni Colleries, on 17-3-1958. He had studied upto IV Form (IX Class) in the Government High School for Boys, Guntur from 25-7-1951 to 4-9-1951. He discontinued the studies and left the school. He applied for a Transfer Certificate on 28-6-52 and the same was furnished to him on 30-6-1952. Petitioner submits that he had produced the above Transfer Certificate at the time when he joined duty in Shanti Khani Mine. He submits further that it was because of his educational qualification disclosed by the transfer certificate that he was appointed as Munshi. The date of birth was mentioned therein as 11-7-35. Petitioner submits that his age was wrongly recorded in his service record as 26 years, on 17-3-1958. The effect of that entry was that he would have been born in 1932. In 1989, there were reports of discrepancy in the date of birth of some of the employees as entered in the company records. Petitioner came to know on enquiries that the transfer certificate which he had produced at the time of entry into service was missing from the records and therefore the employer had assessed his age on the date of entry into service as 26 years on 17-3-58. On 14-10-1989, he filed a representation requesting the 2nd respondent to correct his date of birth as 11-7-35. There was no reply from the 2nd respondent. He therefore obtained a duplicate copy of transfer certificate which was issued on 30-6-1952. Along with a xerox copy of the duplicate Certificate, he filed another representation on 4-9-90 to the 2nd respondent. That also did not evoke any response. Thereafter on 8-4-91 the 2nd respondent issued a notice stating that the petitioner has to retire from service with effect from 1-4-1992 on completion of 60 years of age. Petitioner then filed representations on 10-4-91 and 10-6-91 to the 2nd respondent. He was required to be present before the Apex Medical Board on 1-11-1991 apparently on his request. The medical Board confirmed the company records that the petitioner was of 26 years of age on 17-3-58. It is the case of the petitioner that the Apex Medical Board came to the conclusion . without looking into the Transfer Certificate and without heeding to his pleas based thereon. Petitioner protested the decision of the Medical Board in his representations dt. 9-12-91 and 12-12-1991 to the 1st respondent. In his order No. P. 34/4184/IR/51 dated 16-1-1992, the 1st respondent rejected the representations of the petitioner stating that there was no provision to correct the date of birth basing on the Transfer Certificate. Petitioner impugns that order.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection of those representations is contrary to the circulars issued by the 1st respondent. Reference is made to the circular issued by the 1st respondent No. P. 49/4702/IR/1270 dt. 1-8-1988 with reference to Instruction No. 76 dt. 25-4-1988 of the Joint By partite Committee for Coal Industry-IV, along with its Annexure-1. Clause (A) (ii) of the Annexure the effect that in the case of all non-matriculates, the date of birth recorded in their school leaving certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth Petitioner submits that he having left the school after discontinuing studies in 9th class and his date of birth having been correctly entered as 11 -7-53 in the Transfer Certificate which is the same as School Leaving Certificate, the respondents are bound to correct the date of birth in accordance with that certificate. Petitioner submits further that only in the case of persons who are illiterates in the sense of not having any school education, could the respondents and an employee to the Medical Board for determination of the date of birth, as per Clauses A(iv) of Annexure-1. According to him respondents acted illegally in referring him to the Medical board in spite of positive evidence which he produced that his date of birth as per the School Leaving Certificate obtained prior to his entry into service was 11-7-1935. Yet another submission which the petitioner made is that the respondents discriminated against him in so far as they had acted upon the School Leaving Certificates in other cases, but refused to do so in his case. He submits that the rejection of his request for correction of date of birth being contrary to the instructions based on proceedings of the Joint Bipartite Committee of the Coal Industry and the Circulars issued by the Board is arbitrary, discriminatory and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. Respondents have filed a counter affidavit. It is asserted that when the petitioner joined service on 17-3-58, his age was recorded as 26 years, since he had not produced any evidence, and petitioner had accepted that entry in his service record. It is admitted that the petitioner had filed a representation on 14-10-1989 enclosing a xerox copy of Transfer Certificate No. 27/52-53 which w&o issued by the Head Master, Government High School for Boys, Guntur. On 15-9-1990, the Mines Sub-Committee constituted under circular dt.16-5-1987 verified the record and having noticed four years of difference in the ages recorded in the Service & Identity Card and the B-Register and the T.C issued by the Head-Master, decided to refer his case to the Age Determination Committee. Respondent submits that it is in accordance with the circular issued on 1-8-1988 as per instruction-76 of JBCCI. That Instruction on which respondents rely, is in the following terms:
"(B) Review/determination of the date of birth in respect of existing employees:
(ii) Wherever there is no variation in records, such cases will not be reopened unless there is very glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the Management. The Management after being satisfied on the merits of the case will take appropriate action for correction through Age Determination Committee/Medical Board.
(F) Where the Management (i.e.,) Area Age Assessment Committee consisting of General Manager, Personnel Manager and Medical Officer- in-charge of the Area is satisfied that there is a glaring disparity between the date of birth recorded in the company records and the apparent age of the employee, the cases may be referred to the Apex Medical Board located at Headquarters of the Company for determination of age."
On 14-9-1991 the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board consisting of Chief General Manager, Bellampalli, Medical Superintendent, Area Hospital, Bellampalli and the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, Bellampalli considered the case of the petitioner and decided to refer his case to the Apex Medical Board at Kothagudem for correct assessment of his age. The Apex Medical Board which met on 1-11-91 at which the petitioner was present confirmed the age of the petitioner as recorded in the Company's records. Respondent submits that this procedure was prescribed by the employment circulars of the company. It is also submitted that the reply dt.16-1-92 which the 1st respondent company gave to the representation dt.9-12-91 is fully correct, since there is no provision for revising the date of birth on the basis of the Transfer Certificate. Reference is also made to Clause (B)(i)(a) of Annexure-1 of the Circular dt.1-8-88 to the following effect:
"(B)(i)(a) In the case of the existing employees Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the recognised Universities or Board or Middle Pass Certificate issued by the Board of Education and/or Department of Public Instruction and admit cards issued by the aforesaid Bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said Universities/Boards/ Institutions prior to the date of employment."
Respondents submit that the petitioner had not produced Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate or Middle Pass Certificate issued by the Board of Education or institution in which he had studied and therefore he is not entitled to the benefit of Clause (B)(i)(a) of the circular for determination of his age in the service records. Respondents also submit that the petitioner had, as a matter of fact, requested for reference of his case to the Age Determination Committee in his representations and it is not for him now to dispute the age determined by that Committee in accordance with the instructions and the Circulars of the Company.
4.The dispute seems to me to be in a very narrow compass. The first is whether the petitioner had produced the Transfer Certificate which he is alleged to have obtained from the School on 30-6-1952 at the time when he joined service on 17-3-58. It is asserted that the document was produced. It is stated by the respondents that such a document does not exist in the service record of the petitioner. The very fact that even on the date of entry into service his age was ascertained without reference to any such certificate also indicates that the Certificate would not have been produced at the time of his entry into service. I am not persuaded to accept the averment of the petitioner that Transfer Certificate No. 27/52-53 was produced at the time of his entry into service.
5. That however is not the end of the matter. Admittedly, petitioner had produced a Xerox copy of the duplicate of the Transfer Certificate along with his representation dt.14-10-1989 requesting for correction of his date of birth. The only question for me to consider is whether petitioner was entitled to seek correction of the date of birth in accordance with the procedure covered by Clause (B)(i)(a) or (B)(ii)(F) of implementation Instruction No. 76, which was annexed to circular No. P.49/4702/IR/1270, dt.1-8-88. Admittedly, the respondents proceeded under the latter instruction on the assumption that there was no record relating to his date of birth. If the transfer certificate which he had produced viz., the School Leaving Certificate, or any document which answers the requirement of Clause (B)(i)(a) of the Circular, petitioner will be entitled to have his case considered for correction of date of birth in accordance with the entry in the transfer certificate. Two points arise in this connection. The first is whether it is the School Leaving Certificate, and the second, whether it answers the requirements of Clause (B)(i)(a) of Annexure-1 which I have extracted above.
6. Counsel for the respondents seem to be correct in his submission that the requirement of School Leaving Certificate applies only to persons at the stage of entry into service and does not apply to age verification of existing employees. Obviously Clause (B)(i)(a) alone applies to verification of age of existing employees. The further question is whether in the case of existing employees only four certificates viz., (1) Matriculation Certificate, or (2) Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the recognised Universities or Board, or (3) Middle pass Certificate issued by the Board of Education and/or Department of Public Instruction, and (4) admit cards issued by the aforesaid bodies, should be treated as evidence for correction of date of birth? In the case of a student who joined the institution and left it before the course was complete, he may not be able to produce Middle Pass Certificate. Not being a Matriculate or H.S.C. holder, the above Certificates are beyond the reach of the petitioner. The only question is whether the Certificate which he produced will be deemed to be admit card issued by the institution where he studied prior to the date of his employment?
7. I am not referred to any rule which provides for a Middle Pass Certificate or an Admit Card, whereas the rules do provide for a Transfer Certificate. In the ordinary course, Transfer Certificate issued by the Government Institution is prima facie evidence of its contents. A presumption-may be rebuttable-under Section 114(c) of the Evidence Act may attach to such a document. In the absence of any evidence that it was obtained fraudulently or was tampered with or was otherwise undependable, respondents are bound to consider the same as authentic document, indicating the date of birth of the person in whose favour it was issued. This aspect of the matter escaped the attention of the respondents in dealing with the representations which the petitioner had submitted.
8. It may be true that the petitioner had requested the respondents to set the machinery in motion, for correction of his date of birth, even by reference to the Age Determination Committee. According to him, that does not disentitle him from insisting on the respondents considering the Transfer Certificate issued in accordance with the requirements of the Education Rules and to which a presumption of correctness attaches unless proved otherwise. I am inclined to agree. If a Middle Pass Certificate or an Admit Card issued by the Institution which is not provided by any statute can be a document which shall be taken into consideration correction of date of birth of existing employees, whether it shall not be so in the case of a Transfer Certificate which indicates the elements of both of them was a consideration which was completely ignored by the respondents.
9. It is not necessary to burden this decision with authorities. If there be such need, reference to Ranjit Kumar Chattarjee v. Union of India, 1984 (1) LLJ 402. Manak Chand v. State of H.P, 1976 (1) SLR 402. and Pandurangam v. General Manager, South Central Railway, 1983 (2) An.W.R. 36. will be sufficient to make out this point that entries in records maintained by Government Schools have to be considered as valid unless proved otherwise.
10. In this view, the impugned order cannot be sustained nor can the determination of the age of the petitioner arrived at by the Age Determination Committee without considering the Transfer Certificate be considered as correct. The 1st respondent is therefore directed to consider the request of the petitioner for correction of the date of birth on the basis of the Transfer Certificate which the petitioner had produced. Admittedly, the original of that Certificate was issued prior to the date of his entry into service. The 1st respondent shall consider the effect of that certificate and correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the service record, so as to enable him to continue in service till he attains age of retirement determined on a consideration of the above certificate. There will be a direction that till such time a final decision is rendered, petitioner shall be continued in service.
11. The Writ Petition is allowed as above, but without costs.