Jharkhand High Court
Writ vs M/S Central Coalfields Limited on 21 February, 2022
Author: Ravi Ranjan
Bench: Chief Justice, Sujit Narayan Prasad
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.329 of 2021
Gopal Prasad Mahto, aged about 61 years, son of Laldhari Mahto,
resident of Arra Colliery, PO: Kuju, PS: Mandu, District-Ramgarh.
... ... Writ-Petitioner /Appellant
Versus
1. M/s Central Coalfields Limited, a subsidiary of Coal India Limited,
having its Registered Office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, PO: Kanke,
PS: Kanke, District-Ranchi, through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, PO & PS: Kanke, District-Ranchi.
2. Project Officer, Arra Colliery of M/s Central Coalfields Limited, PO:
Kuju, PS: Mandu, District-Ramgarh.
...... Respondents/Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
----------------------------
ORAL JUDGMENT
05/Dated 21st February, 2022
1. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been taken up through video conferencing. They have no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and/or video quality.
2. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 17.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(L) No. 6974 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the direction upon the respondents to consider the objection for correction of the date of birth in the service excerpt of the writ petitioner-appellant has been rejected while dismissing the writ petition.
[2]
3. The brief facts as per the pleading which are required to be enumerated, read as hereunder:
It is the case of the writ-petitioner-appellant that he was appointed in Arra Colliery on 28.12.1980. His date of birth was mentioned as 01.01.1957 which according to the writ-petitioner-
appellant was wrongly mentioned. The writ-petitioner-appellant claims that he has been promoted to the post of Trip Man Grade-III. He was further provisionally promoted to the post of Dumpman Man Grade-II.
Thereafter, the writ-petitioner-appellant was transferred to New Quarry as Grade-III Clerk. On 10.03.2016, the writ-petitioner-appellant had raised objection before the respondent no. 2 for correction of his date of birth as 02.01.1960. However, vide letter dated 27.07.2016, the writ-
petitioner-appellant was issued superannuation notice intimating that he would complete 60 years of age on 31.12.2016. Thereafter, the writ-
petitioner-appellant had approached to this Court for correction of his date of birth on the ground that his date of birth was recorded in the service record as 02.01.1960.
The learned Single Judge, considering the entire aspect of the matter and taking into consideration the settled position of law that the issue about the correction of date of birth cannot be allowed to be agitated at the fag end of the service, has dismissed the writ petition, against which the present intra-court appeal has been filed.
4. Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the writ-petitioner-appellant has submitted that as per the school record, the date of birth of the writ- petitioner-appellant is 02.01.1960 but at the time of entering into the service, wrong reference of his date of birth has been recorded, i.e., [3] 01.01.1957. The writ-petitioner-appellant made an objection for making necessary correction in the date of birth at the stage of his superannuation, i.e., on 10.03.2016 while the superannuation notice was issued on 27.07.2016 for his superannuation w.e.f. 31.12.2016 on attaining the age of 60 years counting from the date of birth as mentioned in the service record as 01.01.1957.
Mr. Sahani has further submitted that the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition without taking into consideration the date of birth mentioned in the service record and merely on the ground of raising the objection at the fag end of service, the writ petition has been dismissed which cannot be said to be justified order, therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law.
5. Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge since the learned Single Judge has considered the settled position of law that at the fag end of service, the objection regarding the reference of date of birth as recorded in the service record, cannot be allowed to be agitated. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the order passed by the learned Single Judge may not be interfered with.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge.
The sole issue which fell for consideration before the learned Single Judge was as to whether at the fag end of service career, the objection regarding date of birth can be allowed to be agitated? [4]
The learned Single Judge had answered the issue holding in the impugned order that at the fag end of service career, the objection regarding correction of date of birth made in the service excerpt cannot be allowed to be raised.
7. Admittedly in the case in hand, the writ-petitioner-appellant joined his service on 28.12.1980 on the basis of his date of birth recorded in the service excerpt as 01.01.1957. He raised an objection on 10.03.2016 regarding his date of birth which according to the writ-petitioner- appellant was wrongly mentioned as 01.01.1957 instead of 02.01.1960. The notice for superannuation of the writ-petitioner-appellant was issued on 27.07.2016 w.e.f. 31.12.2016, as such, the objection regarding correction in the date of birth was just prior to the superannuation of the writ-petitioner-appellant, i.e., at the fag end of his service career.
8. The law is already settled as to at which stage the objection regarding correction in the date of birth is to be agitated by one or the other employee in case of wrong entry of the date of birth in the service excerpt.
9. The Full Bench of this Court in Kamta Pandey vs. M/s B.C.C.L. & Ors., (2007) 3 JLJR 726 has laid down law that at the fag end of service career, no objection regarding date of birth is allowed to be agitated. However, in the aforesaid judgment, it has been left open to consider the raising of the dispute of age at the fag end of the service depending upon certain facts, i.e., if some of the records of the company like Identity Card and Seva Abhilekh, which have been issued immediately after appointment, would indicate that his date of birth had been mentioned as reflected in the matriculation certificate is the same. [5] But, in the case in hand, the writ petitioner-appellant had joined his service on 28.12.1980 and after about 36 years, the dispute about discrepancy in the date of birth has been raised that too when the notice of superannuation was issued for the retirement of the writ petitioner- appellant on attaining the age of superannuation. Further, no other document has been brought on record to justify the stand. Therefore, the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court about not allowing to raise such dispute at the fag end of service would apply in the facts of this case. Paragraph-28 of the aforesaid judgment is being reproduced hereinbelow:
"28. In this case, as indicated above, it cannot be said that the claim has been made only at the fag end of the service. On the other hand, some of the records of the Company, like Identity Card and Seva Abhilekh, which have been issued immediately after appointment, would indicate that his date of birth had been mentioned as 1-7- 1951 as reflected in the Matriculation Certificate. Therefore, above decisions cited by the counsel for the respondents dealing with claim at the fag end would not be of any help to the respondents."
The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of M.P. vs. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664 has held that if a government servant makes a request for correction of the recorded date of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond the time fixed by his employer, he cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth, even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. Paragraph-8 of the said judgment is being reproduced hereinbelow:
"8. It needs to be emphasised that in matters involving correction of date of birth of a government servant, particularly on the eve of his superannuation or at the fag end of his career, the court or the tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the service book at the time of entry into any government service. Unless the court or the tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and that such a claim is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed or as per the consistent procedure adopted by the department concerned, as the case may be, and a real injustice has been caused to the person concerned, the court or the tribunal should be loath to issue a [6] direction for correction of the service book. Time and again this Court has expressed the view that if a government servant makes a request for correction of the recorded date of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond the time fixed by his employer, he cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth, even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. No court or the tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights (see Union of India v. Harnam Singh [(1993) 2 SCC 162 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 375 :
(1993) 24 ATC 92] )."
In State of Tamil Nadu vs. T.V. Venugopalan, (1994) 6 SCC 302 as also in State of Maharashtra vs. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble, (2010) 14 SCC 423, the ratio has been laid down that at the fag end of service career the dispute pertaining to date of birth is not allowed to be agitated. Relevant paragraph of the judgment rendered in State of Tamil Nadu vs. T.V. Venugopalan (supra) is being reproduced hereinbelow:
"7. ............The government servant having declared his date of birth as entered in the service register to be correct, would not be permitted at the fag end of his service career to raise a dispute as regards the correctness of the entries in the service register. It is common phenomenon that just before superannuation, an application would be made to the Tribunal or court just to gain time to continue in service and the Tribunal or courts are unfortunately unduly liberal in entertaining and allowing the government employees or public employees to remain in office, which is adding an impetus to resort to the fabrication of the record and place reliance thereon and seek the authority to correct it. When rejected, on grounds of technicalities, question them and remain in office till the period claimed for, gets expired. This case is one such stark instance. Accordingly, in our view, the Tribunal has grossly erred in showing overindulgence in granting the reliefs even trenching beyond its powers of allowing him to remain in office for two years after his date of superannuation even as per his own case and given all conceivable directions beneficial to the employee. It is, therefore, a case of the grossest error of law committed by the Tribunal which cannot be countenanced and cannot be sustained on any ground. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs quantified as Rs 3000."
It is evident from the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as referred above that the issue of date of birth is not allowed to be agitated at the fag end of service.
10. So far as the fact of the case in hand is concerned, admittedly the objection regarding the date of birth has been made for the first time by the writ-petitioner-appellant on 10.03.2016 while he was to be superannuated on 31.12.2016, for which, the superannuation notice was [7] issued on 27.07.2016, therefore, the objection regarding wrong reference of date of birth has been agitated for the first time about four months before the superannuation of the writ-petitioner-appellant, as such, it is a fit case where it is to be held that the objection regarding the date of birth has been raised by the writ-petitioner-appellant for the first time at the fag end of his service.
11. This Court has also gone across the order passed by the learned Single Judge wherefrom it is evident that the learned Single Judge has considered the fact about consideration of the objection to make necessary correction in the date of birth and after finding that such dispute has been raised at the fag end of his service, rejected the plea and dismissed the writ petition.
12. This Court, in view of the discussion made hereinabove as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, is of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from no error.
13. Accordingly, the instant intra-court appeal fails and stands dismissed.
14. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.) (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Saurabh/ N.A.F.R.