Jharkhand High Court
Sukullah Mian vs The Bharat Coking Coal Limited Through ... on 3 July, 2017
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S.N. Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 454 of 2015
.....
Sukullah Mian @ Sukrullah Mian .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairmancum
Managing Director having is office at Koyla Bhavan P.O Koyla Nagar,
P.S. Saridhella Dist. Dhanbad
2. The Director Personnel, BCCL, having is office at Koyla Bhavan P.O
Koyla Nagar P.S. Saridhella Dist. Dhanbad
3. General Manager, Ena Open Cast Project BCCL, Dhansar Area P.O
& P.S. Dhansar Dist. Dhanbad
4. The Project Officer, Ena Open Cast Project BCCL, Dhansar, Area P.O
& P.S. Dhansar Dist. Dhanbad .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
rd July, 2017
07/ Dated 3
The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for
making necessary corrections in the NEIS records as maintained by
the respondents, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner has been
wrongly entered as 24 years on 26.07.1978 in stead of 01.08.1958.
Since, at the time of joining, in the year 1978, the petitioner was
matriculate and his matriculation certificate reflects his date of birth
as 01.08.1958 and further prays for quashing the letter dated
3/8.7.2014in which the date of retirement of the petitioner is mentioned as 31.07.2014.
Factual Matrix:
The date of birth of the petitioner is 01.08.1958 as has been incorporated in the matriculation certificate of the petitioner which he passed in the year 1975. The petitioner got employment in the BCCL at Dhanbad in the year 1978 i.e (20.07.1978) and at that time the petitioner was not having the matriculation certificate as the same was not provided to him by the Board, hence, he could not submit the same. It is a case of the petitioner that he was given promotion to GradeIII vide office order dated 20.09.1984. In the service excerpts which was not filled up by the petitioner, the date of birth got wrongly mentioned as 24 years on 26.07.1978 and furthermore the essential qualifications column was left vacant and 2 as such, the petitioner was superannuated on 31.7.2014 based on wrong entry made in the service excerpts i.e. 24 years on 26.7.1978. The petitioner has been made to superannuate four years prior to his actual date of birth and in view of the fact that in spite of several representations filed by the petitioner, the respondents said wrong entry cannot be corrected and the petitioner has been made to retire on 31.7.2014 and, therefore, the petitioner was compelled to move this Court by filing present writ petition.
Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondentauthorities have illegally and arbitrarily retired the petitioner on 31.7.2014 though they were aware of the fact that the matriculation certificate reflects the date of birth as 01.08.1958 but because of the wrong entry made in the service excerpts i.e 24 years, petitioner was forcibly made to retire. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Implementation Instruction76 Clause B(i) (a) at Annexure4 to the writ petition, the petitioner was an employee of the respondentauthorities and they should consider the date of birth as reflected in the matriculation certificate i.e 01.08.1958. But, the same was illegally and arbitrarily not considered by the respondents and as such the same should be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that as a result of the quashment of the date of birth entered into the service excerpts the petitioner is also entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and a direction may be given to the respondents authorities to retire the petitioner considering the date of birth as 01.08.1958.
On the other hand, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the respondentsBCCL vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that even if, the petitioner was having the matriculation certificate the same should have been submitted before the respondentauthorities, but the same was not done by the petitioner. In absence of the matriculation certificate the respondentauthorities were not duty bound to consider the date of 3 birth which is not given to the respondent authorities. Learned counsel very fairly submits that as per the rules or the laws Clause B
(i)(a)the interpretation is that matriculation certification has to be issued prior to date of employment though the same was issued prior to date of employment, but, it was not submitted before the respondentauthorities at that time. Learned counsel further submits that the stands of the counsel for the petitioner is contrary in view of the fact that the documents shows that it was issued in the year 25.06.1975 prior to the date of appointment, but as per the petitioner he was not in a possession of the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the division bench judgment of this Hon'ble Court rendered in in L.P.A. No. 67 of 2015 in the case of Nirmal Kumar Singh Vs. The Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors.
Be that as it may, in view of the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. In view of the fact that as per Annexure4 to the writ petition the Implementation Instruction no.76 B (i) (a) reads as under: "(B) Review determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees.
I) a) In the case of the existing employees Matriculation Certificate or High Secondary Certificate issued by the recognized Universities or Board of Middle Pass Certificate issued by the Board of Education and/or Department of Public Instruction and admit cards issued by aforesaid Bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said Universities/ Boards/ Institutions prior to date of employment".
It appears that BCCL has to consider the certificate issued by the Universities, Board or Institution prior to date of employment. In the instant case, the said certificate was issued prior to date of employment, but the same was not submitted before the respondent authorities, therefore, the petitioner would have no case at all. In view of the fact that the date of birth as mentioned in the matriculation certificate has to be considered in view of the Implementation Instruction No. 76 B(i). It was incumbent upon the respondents to consider the same. It is submitted by the learned 4 counsel for the respondentsauthorities that the delay is on the part of the petitioner and he suffers due to his own fault. The respondent authorities BCCL is directed to reconsider the matter and pass a suitable reasoned order in accordance with law taking into account the Implementation Instruction No.76 and if the case of the petitioner comes in purview of the said rule steps for correction in date of birth shall be done and suitable reasoned orders be passed. And if the date of birth is corrected steps may also be taken for payment of back wages and orders regarding reinstatement in accordance with law preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Resultantly the writ petition stands allowed.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) Anjali/