Jharkhand High Court
Ram Pyare Singh vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors on 18 July, 2014
Equivalent citations: 2014 (4) AJR 771
Author: R. Banumathi
Bench: Chief Justice, Amitav K. Gupta
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A.No. 327 of 2006
------
Ram Pyare Singh ... .... ... .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd
through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
2. The General Manager, Sijua Area No.V
3. Director (Personal) Koyla Bhawan
4. Deputy Chief Personnel Manger, Kusunda Area
5. The Project Officer, Kusunda Area
6. Manager Indsutry, Kusunda Area .... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Kumar Mehta, Advocate
------
Order No.12 Dated the 18th July,2014
Per Amitav K. Gupta, J : The instant Letters Patent Appeal is
directed against the order dated 28.03.2006, passed in
W.P.(S) No.6314 of 2005, whereby the writ petition of the
appellant, for quashing the letter dated 18/23-07-2005,
issued by the respondents intimating him that he would
be superannuating from service w.e.f. 31.12.2005, was
dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the appellant
was appointed in Bharat Cocking Coal Limited (in short
2
B.C.C.L) in the year 1970 as an underground labourer
and he became permanent employee of the management
in the year 1980 and he was posted as surface employee
in the same year; that vide letter dated 3/04-02-1986
(Annexure - 1) the appellant was regularized as dresser in
Technical Grade "H". It is stated that at the time of
appointment the appellant had mentioned his date of
birth as 04-02-1952 on the basis of the matriculation
certificate granted to the appellant in the year 1966 by
the Bihar School Examination Board (Annexure - 2); that
he was matriculate at the time of appointment and he was
not questioned by the appellant regarding the entry made
with respect to the date of birth; that he was issued
service excerpts in the year 1987, wherein his date of
birth was recorded as 04-02-1952 (Annexure - 3); that
initially the date of birth of the appellant was recorded as
1943 in the service excerpts (Annexure - 3), which was
brought to the notice of the respondents corrected as
04-02-1952and the appellant was under the belief that necessary corrections have been carried out in accordance with the standing orders, with respect, to the appointees who have passed matriculation or equivalent examination; that the appellant - petitioner was surprised to receive a letter from the management bearing No.BCCL/858 dated 18/23-07-2005 (Annexure - 4), 3 whereby, he was intimated that he would be attaining the age of 60 years and would be retiring w.e.f 31-12-2005; that in Annexure - 4 showing the superannuation in December, 2005, the date of birth has not been mentioned and in the said Annexure - 4, the date of birth of the appellant has been recorded as 1945; that the appellant filed a representation with respondent No.6 i.e. the Manager, Industry, Kusunda Area on 05.08.2005 intimating him about the incorrect entry of the date of birth requesting them to make necessary correction, but the same was not looked into, whereupon the appellant filed a writ application being W.P.(S) No.6314 of 2005 for quashing the letter dated 18/23-07-2005, but the said writ was dismissed by the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has assailed the impugned order and submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that as per instruction 76 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company in the case of any employee, who was a matriculate at the time of joining, the date of birth as recorded in the matriculation certificate would be final and would have a binding effect. It is argued that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the petitioner had raised the dispute relating to his date of birth at the fag end of his career; that in view of the entry made in the 4 service excerpts, the appellant had no apprehension that incorrect date of birth has been entered. It has also been argued that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that service excerpts contained a different date of birth from what has entered in the statutory Form - B register by the respondent, who had denied the opportunity to the appellant to get the date of birth rectified and corrected.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the date of birth of the appellant recorded in matriculation certificate simply demonstrates that his date of superannuation should not have been in the year 2005 and in support of his contention, he has also relied in the decision reported in 2007 (3) JCR 681 (Jhr) (FB) in the case of Kamta Pandey Vs. M/s B.C.C.L through Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Dhanbad & Ors., wherein it has been held that the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate has binding effect and he has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd & Ors. Vs. Bajrangi Rabidas reported in 2013 (4) JLJR SC 467 and submitted that the ratio in the aforesaid decision explicitly states in paras 14 to 16 that the date of birth as recorded in the matriculation certificate should be accorded priority. 5
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - company has submitted that in the statutory Form - B register, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 27 years and it is specifically mentioned that the date of birth is 01.01.1946 and the said Form - B was signed by the appellant - petitioner; that the appellant - petitioner had not produced his matriculation certificate at the time of his appointment and acknowledged and accepted the entry of his age in statutory Form - B register, which has been annexed in the counter affidavit to the original writ petition and even in the service excerpts, the age of the petitioner has been recorded as 27 years in the year 1973; that if the petitioner had any grievance about incorrect entry of his date of birth then he should have raised it at the initial stage or an early opportunity of his appointment; that in fact Form - B, wherein, the date of birth of the appellant
- petitioner has been correctly recorded has been authenticated by the appellant - petitioner, hence he cannot deny at the fag end of his service that his date of birth was not recorded as per the matriculation certificate.
6. The learned counsel of the respondent - company has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2014 (3) JBCJ 28 SC in the case of M/s 6 Bharat Coking Coal Ltd & Ors. Vs. Chhota Birsa Uranw, wherein, it has been held that statutory documents like Form - B register is binding and School Leaving Certificate cannot prevail over records and statutory documents of the company; that the appellant should have produced the matriculation certificate at the time of appointment since he has stated that he had passed matriculation examination in the year 1966 as per Annexure - 2, which was prior to joining of his service. It has also been submitted that the appellant - petitioner has superannuated and the impugned order does not require any interference.
7. Having heard the learned counsels and on perusal of the material on record, it is evident in the decision relied on by the learned counsel, for the appellant, in the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd & Ors. Vs. Bajrangi Rabidas reported in 2013 (4) JLJR SC 467, wherein it has been held that the person passing the matriculation examination should produce it at the first instance. It is apparent from the record of this case that the appellant - petitioner did not produce the matriculation certificate, which he claims was in his possession which he did not. It is evident from Form - B that his date of birth is mentioned as 01.01.1946 and the appellant - petitioner had signed in flawless English which shows that he is a 7 literate person and signed on Form - B having full knowledge about the contents of documents. The said decision in fact supports the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent whereby the Supreme Court held that the entry in the records and statutory documents of the company shall be given primacy.
8. Likewise in the decision reported in 2007 (3) JCR 681 (Jhr) (FB) in the case of Kamta Pandey Vs. M/s B.C.C.L through Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Dhanbad & Ors., it has been held that there is no clear mention of exact date of birth in Form - B register and the identity card issued to the petitioner immediately after appointment showed his date of birth as 01.07.1951 which is of matriculation certificate, thus it was directed that the respondent company should make a change.
9. The facts of the case is not applicable in the present case as in the said case there was no entry made regarding date of birth in Form - B but in the case at heard there is specific entry in Form - B mentioning the date of birth and the said Form - B has been signed by the appellant - petitioner; that the said entry shows his date of birth as 01.01.1946. Accordingly, the said decision runs counter to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant.
8
10. It is held that Form - B, which was prepared at the time of joining of the appellant, it is a statutory document and record of service and has been duly signed and authenticated by the appellant. Thus there is no plausible explanation as to why he had not produced the matriculation certificate at the time of appointment, which was in his possession as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is evident that he raised his grievance at the fag end of his service.
11. Thus, the impugned order does not merit any interference in fact and in law, accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal is, hereby, dismissed.
(R. Banumathi, C. J.) (Amitav K. Gupta, J.) Chandan/-A.F.R