Jharkhand High Court
Sarswati Devi @ Sarsu vs M.Raghwan on 7 December, 2009
Author: D.G.R. Patnaik
Bench: D.G.R. Patnaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
C.M.P. No. 138 of 2009
...
Sarswati Devi @ Sarsu ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
M. Raghwan ... Respondents.
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate.
For the Respondent : - Mr. D. R. Dubey.
...
3/07.12.2009Petitioner has filed the instant application, praying for modification in the order dated 04.12.2008, passed in W.P. (C) No. 4488 of 2007, whereby while dismissing the writ application filed by her, a cost of Rs.10,000/- was imposed on her.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being a maid- servant, earning a very meager amount for her livelihood, is not in a financial position to deposit the cost of Rs.10,000/- and she is afraid that on account of her failure to deposit the cost amount, she may be hold up for contempt of Court, although, the petitioner does not have any such intention to commit any contempt of this Court. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has alternative prayer for reducing the amount of cost, so as to enable the petitioner to comply with the order.
Learned counsel for the Respondent on the other hand, would contest the claim of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has been persistently misleading the Court by making several incorrect statements and misrepresentations, and it was for this reason that the cost was imposed on her. Learned counsel explains further, that though on the one hand, the petitioner has filed the present application for modification of the order but in the proceedings before the court below, she has filed a petition claiming that she has preferred a review application of the order dated-04.12.2008 of this Court.
From the perusal of the order of this Court dated-04.12.2008, it appears that this Court has taken a serious view on the conduct of the petitioner for making misleading and incorrect statements on affidavit and it is in this context that a cost of Rs.10,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner. There is no genuine reason assigned as to why the direction for payment of cost should be withdrawn.
However, considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a poor lady and he is earning her livelihood by working as a maid-servant in different houses, the order dated-04.12.2008 is modified to the extent that the amount of cost shall stand reduced to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand), which has to be deposited by the petitioner to the other side within 15 days from the date of this order.
With these observations, this C.M.P. stands disposed of.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.) APK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P. (S) No. 4732 of 2005...
Employers in relation to the Management of Govindpur Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
Their workmen being represented by the Joint General Secretary, Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Dhanbad ... Respondent.
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Advocate.
For the Respondent : - Mr. Someshwar Roy, Advocate.
...
4/09.12.2009 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner, in this writ application, is the Management of the Govindpur Colliery of M/s. B.C.C.L., Dhanbad.
3. Challenge, in this writ application, is to the Award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 153 of 1998, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal has answered the reference in favour of the Respondent-workmen.
4. The facts of the petitioner's case in brief is stated as under:-
The petitioner's mother was in employment of the Respondent-B.C.C.L. in the Govindpur Colliery. She died in the month of September,1984. Within one year after her death, the petitioner filed an application before the concerned authorities of the Respondents, praying for grant of compassionate appointment under the terms of the N.C.W.A. The application was considered and the petitioner was called upon to furnish certain relevant documents in order to assess his eligibility. It appears, however, that the matter remained inconclusive for some time and later, as per the stand taken by the Management, when the petitioner did not respond with the relevant documents, the issue was closed.
5. It appears that on the plea that no intimation regarding the decision taken on his application for compassionate appointment was received for a considerable period from the side of the Management, the petitioner continued to await for communication in this regard and ultimately, he raised an industrial dispute through the Labour Union and upon approval by the Central Government, the reference for adjudication of the dispute was accordingly referred to the Industrial Tribunal.
6. By the impugned Award, after hearing the parties, the Industrial Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the workman, directing the petitioner-Management to grant him compassionate appointment in terms of the N.C.W.A.
7. Assailing the impugned Award, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned Award is bad both on points of law as well as on facts, since the Tribunal has conspicuously failed to address the relevant and pertinent issues, namely, the delay in making the reference of the dispute and has not recorded any finding thereon. Learned counsel explains that the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was filed way back in 1985, and since no decision was taken on account of the non-appearance of the workman with the relevant documents, the raising of the dispute after more than ten years, is apparently stale and the very purpose of compassionate appointment has become frustrated. Yet, the Tribunal has not considered this aspect, despite the fact that in the objections taken by the petitioner-Management, a specific issue regarding the staleness of the reference of the dispute, was raised.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-workmen, would on the other hand, want to support the impugned Award, stating that the delay, if any was entirely on the part of the Management and this has been considered by the Tribunal in its Award. Learned counsel explains that admittedly, the workman had submitted his application for compassionate appointment within the limitation period of one year, his claim for compassionate appointment was secured to him under the terms of the N.C.W.A., which was binding on the employer of his deceased-mother. No information regarding the decision taken on the representation of the petitioner was ever communicated to the petitioner and being an illiterate person and in absence of any appropriate advice, he had awaited in bona fide anticipation, and it was ultimately, when he was confirmed that the Management would not respond to his request, then he referred the industrial dispute through the Labour Union for adjudication.
9. From perusal of the impugned Award, I find that the Tribunal has taken note of the objections, raised by the Management including the objections relating to the delay in making the reference. Yet, the Tribunal has not framed any issue for determination on the point of delay in making the reference and has instead, proceeded to declare the Award in favour of the workman by treating the purported lapse entirely on the part of the Management. Apparently, the Tribunal has not considered the fact that even if the Management may not have forwarded any further communication beyond what was sent last to the petitioner, but the petitioner was also responsible for the delay in raising the dispute.
10. In the case of the Management of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bokaro-versus- Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro & Another, a Bench of this Court in W.P. (L) No. 3773 of 2002, had occasion to deal with an identical issue, where the reference of the dispute, was made after a lapse of about 12 years and the Management having taken a specific objection on the ground of staleness of the reference. The Court had observed that though the Tribunal had taken note of such an objection taken by the Management but no issue was framed nor was any finding recorded on any such issue by the Tribunal. By referring to several judgments of the Supreme Court in this context, this Court had set aside the Award of the Tribunal with an observation that it was a case of an admitted, unexplained and inordinate delay of over twelve years in filing the reference case and the Tribunal has clearly erred in not even deciding with regard to the admitted delay and latches.
11. The ratio decided in the aforementioned case of the Management of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (Supra), squarely applies to the facts of the present case also.
12. In the light of the above facts and circumstances and discussions made, I find merit in this writ application. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed. The impugned Award dated-22.11.2004 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 at Dhanbad in Ref. Case No. 153 of 1998, is unsustainable and is accordingly, set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.) APK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P. (S) No. 3464 of 2005...
Prof. Alakh Narayan Prasad ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Director, Human Resources Development department, Higher Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. Ranchi University, through Vice-Chancellor, Ranchi.
4. Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi.
5. Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Human Resources Development Department, Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna ... Respondents.
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - Mr. Shree Krishna Pandey, Advocate.
For the State : - J.C. to A.G.
...
4/09.12.2009 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for a direction upon the Respondents to pay him the balance of his retiral dues, which has not been paid to him, the details of which has been mentioned in Paragraph 33 of the writ application.
3. It appears that earlier, the petitioner had filed a writ application with similar prayer, vide C.W.J.C. No. 3345 of 1994 (R), followed by a contempt application. While disposing of the aforementioned writ application, by its order dated 17.07.2001, this Court had observed that even after payment of the retiral dues made by the Respondents, if the petitioner feels dissatisfied with the quantum, he would be at liberty to avail the alternative remedy for filing a civil suit in the Civil Court, if so advised. The contention of the petitioner is that he has not been advised to file or avail the statutory alternative remedy. Rather, the petitioner has also a right to file a writ application demanding payment of his retiral benefits from the Respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner explains that though a portion of the retiral benefits has been paid to the petitioner by the Respondents but the dues of salary including allowances for the different periods and the difference of pay and allowances due to pay revision of 1996, together assessed at a sum of Rs.14,50,326/- is still due from the Respondents to the petitioner towards his retiral benefits, which has not been paid to him as yet.
5. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Ranchi University submits that as it appears even from the pleadings in the writ application, the petitioner has already received the assessed amount of his retiral benefits. The present claim of the petitioner appears to be based on his demand for the difference of pay and allowances consequent upon the pay revision, which needs to be re-assessed.
6. Considering the submissions, this writ application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Registrar of the Respondent-Ranchi University (Respondent No. 4) stating the details of his claim and the grounds in support thereof and within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation, the Respondent No. 4 shall take a decision in accordance with law and the Rules, by recording a reasoned and speaking order and shall effectively communicate such decision to the petitioner. If the claim of the petitioner is found genuine, then the Registrar of the Ranchi University (Respondent No. 4) shall asses the entire amounts, legitimately payable to the petitioner and ensure the payment of such amounts within two months from the date of the decision taken on the petitioner's representation.
7. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the Respondents-University.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.) APK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P. (S) No. 1240 of 2004...
Shambhu Prasad ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. The Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Ranchi.
5. The Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Works Division, Maheshpur, Pakur ... Respondents.
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - M/s. Ashok Kr. Sinha & L. Ranjan.
For the State : - Mr. Suresh Kumar, J.C. to G.P. III.
...
5/08.12.2009 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for a direction upon the Respondents to consider his case for grant of promotion with effect from 10.03.1997 on the post of Assistant Engineer, with all consequential monetary benefits maintaining his seniority in the light of gradation list/seniority list, prepared by the department itself in the year 2003 and in compliance with the Resolution dated-16.03.1982 and 28.03.1982, issued by the Works Department, Bihar, Patna, as well as the Resolution dated-15.06.2002, issued in compliance with the order of the Supreme Court, dated-10.10.1995, by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Bihar, Patna.
3. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer in the year 1987, after his selection through the Public Service Commission and was posted in the Gumla District at Bano Block.
His services were thereafter sent to the Rural Development Department and he has been continuing and discharging his duties under the Rural Engineering Organization at Kolibera.
The contention of the petitioner is that he was granted Senior Selection Grade directly in the year 2001 in the replacement scale of Rs.1640-2900/- and his present salary is in the revised scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/-.
A Resolution was adopted by the Govt. of Bihar, which was issued vide Circular dated-15.06.2002, providing guidelines for promotion by a roster arrangement. The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste category. Pursuant to the aforesaid Resolution, a Gradation list of the Junior Engineers of the Road Construction Department, earlier known as the Public Works Department, was prepared by the Chief Engineer of the Department. The petitioner's name had appeared at Serial No. 3079. In the revised Gradation List, the petitioner's name stands at Serial No. 678.
4. The petitioner's grievance is that though his name appeared in the Gradation list and he belongs to the Reserved category and the promotions, according to the Government Circular, ought to have been given by way of roster arrangement, but he has not been given the benefit of promotion when the matter was taken up in 1997 and on the other hand, persons junior to the petitioner in the Gradation list and whose names were mentioned at Serial No. 3081 and 3082 belonging to the Schedule Tribe category, have been allowed to supercede the petitioner and they have been made Assistant Engineers, whereas, the petitioner has been compelled to continue on the post of Junior Engineer, all along.
5. In the counter affidavit of the Respondents, the only stand, which appears to have been taken, is that the petitioner has claimed his promotion on the basis of the seniority list, prepared by the Government of Bihar on 10.03.2003. Since the cadre bifurcation has not been completed, therefore, it is for the Government of Bihar to consider the petitioner's claim and to take an appropriate decision on the same.
6. Learned counsel for the Respondents informs that now the cadre bifurcation having been completed, it would be for the concerned authorities of the Respondents in the State of Jharkhand to take the decision on the petitioner's prayer.
7. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the concerned authorities of the Respondents specifying the details of his claim and the materials in support thereof and within 15 days from the date of receipt of the representation, the concerned authorities of the Respondents shall consider the petitioner's claim, take an appropriate decision in accordance with law on the basis of the gradation list prepared and finalized and shall communicate such decision to the petitioner effectively.
8. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the Respondents.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.) APK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P. (S) No. 496 of 2007...
Chhota Birsa Uranw ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
2. Director (Personnel), B.C.C.L., Dhanbad.
3. General Manager, B.C.C.L., Jamunia Open Cast Project, Dhanbad.
4. Deputy Chief Personnel Manager (IR), B.C.C.L., Personnel Directorate, Dhanbad.
5. Project Officer, B.C.C.L., Jamunia Open Cast Project, Dhanbad.
6. Personnel Manager, B.C.C.L., Jamunia Open Cast Project, Dhanbad.
7. Personnel Officer, B.C.C.L., Jamunia Open Cast Project, Dhanbad.
... Respondents.
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents : - Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate.
...
C.A.V. On: - 30/11/2009 Delivered On: - / /2009
...
12/ . .2009 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for quashing the order dated-02.08.2006 (Annexure-6), passed by the Project Officer, Jamunia O.C.P. Area of the B.C.C.L. (Respondent No. 5), whereby the petitioner was communicated that he would superannuate with effect from 28.02.2007, on the basis of his date of birth entered in his service records as 15.02.1947.
3. The facts of the petitioner's case in brief are as follows: -
The petitioner was appointed in service in the Jamunia Open Cast Project of the Respondent-
B.C.C.L., on 31.01.1973 on the post of Miner Loader.
At the time of his appointment, his service records were opened, mentioning the details of his personal information including the date of birth, which was recorded as 15.02.1947.
The petitioner in the year 1986, passed the Mining Sardarship and was given a Mining Sardar Certificate in which his date of birth was recorded as 06.02.1950. This, date of birth was in accordance with the recordings in the School Transfer Certificate, recorded on 12.10.1979.
In the year 1987, pursuant to the Implementation Instruction No. 76 as contained in the National Coal Wage Agreement III, and in order to stabilize the service records of its employees, the employees were given Nominee Forms containing the details of their service records. The petitioner was also given his Nominee Form and on perusal of the same, he found that the particulars in respect of his Father's name, Permanent Address, and date of appointment as recorded in the Form B Register, was incorrect. He raised his grievance over the wrong recordings in the Form B Register and prayed for making the necessary corrections. The petitioner, had besides the other corrections, specifically stated that his date of birth, as recorded in the Mining Sardar Certificate, is 06.02.1950 and the erroneous entry made in the Service records should be corrected, accordingly.
On receipt of the petitioner's objection, the Project Officer, Jamunia Open Cast Project (Respondent No. 5), forwarded the petitioner's objections to the concerned authorities for making the necessary corrections of the personal details of the petitioner in the service records.
The petitioner learnt later, that though his Father's name and permanent address was corrected in the Form B Register, but his date of birth and date of appointment were not corrected. He submitted a fresh representation before his Project Officer (Respondent No. 5), and when his grievance was not redressed, he raised a dispute through his Union, which had also pressed before the concerned authorities to correct the entry of the petitioner's date of birth on the basis of the Mining Sardar Certificate.
In spite of repeated persuasions, the Respondents did not correct the purported erroneous entry of his date of birth in his service records and instead, proceeded to serve an impugned notice of superannuation with effect from 28.02.2007, although according to the petitioner, he would have attained the age of superannuation only on 28.02.2010.
4. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the terms of the Joint Bipartite Agreement recorded under the National Coal Wage Agreement III, the School Leaving Certificate and the Mining Sardar Certificate have to be treated by the Respondents as authentic documents in proof of the date of birth of the employee, unless the same was disputed as a non- genuine Certificate. The Respondents have not disputed the genuineness of the Certificates and therefore, they are bound to accept the same and to correct the entry of the date of birth of the petitioner in his service records.
Learned counsel adds further that it is not a case where the petitioner has raised the dispute at the fag end of his service. Rather, even at the time when he was given his Nomination Form in the year 1987, from which he found that the entries were incorrect, he lodged his protest, raising objections to the erroneous entries and demanding corrections of the same but though corrections have been made in respect of the Father's name and permanent address of the petitioner, but corrections were not carried out in respect of the date of birth and date of joining of the petitioner's service and no reason have been assigned for refusing such corrections.
5. In their counter affidavit, the Respondents have denied and disputed the entire claim of the petitioner. The basic stand taken by the Respondents is that the statutory Form B Register containing the petitioner's date of birth, as 15.02.1947 is the conclusive proof of his date of birth. The Mining Sardar Certificate has nothing to do in respect of the determination of the date of birth of an employee. The Form B Register contains not only the photograph of the petitioner but his signature also, which would confirm that the petitioner had knowingly accepted the entry of his date of birth as correct without raising any dispute and had appended his signature thereon. The petitioner, therefore, cannot raise any dispute after 20 years and that too at the fag end of his service.
6. Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the Respondents would argue that the Implementation Instruction No. 76 of the N.C.W.A. III has no application in the case of the petitioner, since there is no discrepancy in his date of birth and the petitioner having already superannuated from service, after receiving the superannuation notice. This belated writ application, is therefore, not maintainable. Furthermore, the petitioner, if he was aggrieved, has an alternative remedy for redressal of his claim by way of raising an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act.
7. By way of a supplementary counter affidavit, the Respondents have sought to explain that the petitioner was transferred from Madhuban Colliery to Jamunia Open Cast Project and his service extracts were transferred from Madhuban to Barora Area No. 1 on 10.12.1983 and thereafter, the Form B Register was opened in presence of the petitioner, recording his date of birth as 15.02.1947 and the same having been acknowledged by the petitioner, who had appended his signature thereto, the same cannot be disputed by him nor can it be altered.
In support of his arguments, learned counsel would refer to and rely upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court, passed in the case of M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd.-versus-Jamunawali Mian and Others, passed in L.P.A. No. 18 of 2000.
8. After hearing the arguments and perusing the records, I find that the petitioner was initially appointed in service on 01.05.1973, on the post of Mining Sardar in the Madhuban Colliery of the B.C.C.L. and 10 years' later, he was transferred to Jamunia Open Cast Project. He obtained the Mining Sardar Certificate in the year 1986, wherein, his date of birth was recorded as 06.02.1950 on the basis of the School Transfer Certificate, issued on 12.10.1979. Now, this fact informs that the petitioner was not altogether an illiterate person. As declared by the Respondents, the service record including the Form B Register was opened in December, 1973 at the time when he had joined at the Jamunia Open Cast Project on his transfer. The Form B Register, recording his date of birth as 15.02.1947, contains undisputedly the petitioner's signature. Thus, the Form B Register constitutes one set of record, indicating the petitioner's date of birth. On the other hand, the petitioner has come up with another two set of records, namely, the Mining Sardar Certificate and his School Leaving Certificate, both of which indicate that his date of birth is 06.02.1950.
9. The petitioner had occasion to avail opportunity to dispute the correctness of the entry in his service records in recording his date of birth and other particulars in the year 1987 when he was given his Nomination Form for verification and for supplying any information, which need be. As indicated above, the Nominee Forms were given to its employees by the Respondents-B.C.C.L. by way of an application under the terms of the N.C.W.A. III and the Implementation Instruction No. 76, contained therein. This exercise was carried out by the employer to set address the many controversies raised by the employees in respect of the entries in respective service records and to stabilize the service records of its employees. The Implementation Instruction No. 76 specifies the procedure for determination/verification of the date of birth of its employees and lays down that in case of non-Matriculates as in the case of the present petitioner, the date of birth recorded in the School Leaving Certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth. Laying equal emphasis on the statutory Mining Sardar Certificates and Winding Engineer Certificates, the procedure mandates that the entries of the date of birth as recorded in such statutory Certificates shall be treated as authentic. The reference to these Certificates is obviously in the context of disputes raised by the employees regarding their entries of date of birth in their Service records and provides guidance as to how the dispute should be addressed.
10. The Respondents cannot claim that the petitioner had raised his dispute for the first time at the fag end of his service. The facts indicate on the contrary, that she had occasion to raise the dispute way back in the year 1987 itself on the basis of the Certificates in his possession. The Respondents were expected to respond to the dispute raised by the petitioner by obtaining guidance from the Implementation instructions and even if not satisfied, thereupon to conduct any further enquiry as it would have deemed fit under the circumstances. It appears on the contrary that though the petitioner's claim for correction of the other particulars in his service records was acknowledged but his demand for correction of his date of birth, was not considered at all nor was any reason assigned as to why the correction was not made even on the basis of the statutory Mining Sardar Certificate and the School Leaving Certificate.
11. Having given the petitioner, like all other employees, the benefit of seeking correction of the entries contained in their respective Service records including their date of birth, the petitioner's claim cannot be denied, merely because he had signed upon the Form B Register at the time of its opening and containing the entry of date of birth as recorded therein. In the case of Gomati Bai-versus-B.C.C.L. & Others (L.P.A. no. 296 of 2006), the Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider an identical issue, where documents endorsed by the Department containing the entry of date of birth, were different from what was recorded in the service records of the employees. Such documents were prior to the year 1987, the Court had held that when the documents were available, the employer should have conducted the enquiry upon the disputes raised by the employee before calculating the actual date of birth.
12. In the instant case also, the statutory Mining Sardar Certificate was obtained by the petitioner in the year 1986 and the date of birth recorded in the Certificate, was based on the School Leaving Certificate, issued to him in the year 1979. Both these documents along with the Protest Petition of the petitioner, were endorsed and forwarded by his superior in Office to the Department concerned and the same was available with the employer. The dispute ought to have been enquired into by the employer and thereafter, reasons assigned as to why the correction of the entries in the service records regarding his date of birth, was refused.
13. The facts of the case, referred to in the case of M/s.Central Coalfields Ltd.-versus-Junawali Mian & Others (Supra), would not apply to the facts of the present case, since the dispute demanding correction of the date of entry of the date of birth, was raised on the basis of some entry made in the Identity-Card, issued to the employee in the year 1986 and such dispute was raised admittedly, at the fag end of his service. On the contrary, in the present case, the dispute has been raised on the basis of two relevant documents, namely, the statutory Mining Sardar Certificate and the School Leaving Certificate and furthermore, such dispute has been raised not at the fag end of service but almost more than ten years prior to the declared date of superannuation.
14. In the light of the above discussions and the facts and circumstances of the case, I find merit in this writ application. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed. The impugned order dated-02.08.2006 (Annexure-6), is hereby quashed. The Respondents shall within three months from the date of this order, conduct an enquiry on the basis of the Certificates produced by the petitioner, on his claim for correction of his entry regarding his date of birth as made in his service records, in accordance with the Implementation Instruction No. 76 of the N.C.W.A. III and effectively communicate the decision taken together with the reasons assigned to the petitioner.
15. Let a copy of this order be given to the Respondents.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.) APK