Jharkhand High Court
Central Coalfields Ltd vs Kartik Mahto on 24 March, 2022
Author: Ravi Ranjan
Bench: Chief Justice, Sujit Narayan Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.19 of 2022
------
1. Central Coalfields Ltd., a Company incorporated under the
Companies Act, having its registered Office at Darbhanga House, PO-
GPO, PS-Kotwali, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand), through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director, having office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, PO-GPO,
PS-Kotwali, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) and also through its General
Manager (Legal) Sri Partha Bhattacharjee, aged about 59 years, son of
Late P.C. Bhattacharjee, residing at 34, Pragati Enclave, Dibdih, PO-
Doranda, PS-Doranda, District-Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand)
2. The Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Ltd., having its office at
Darbhanga House, PO-GPO, PS-Kotwali, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand)
3. The General Manager (P & IR), Central Coalfields Ltd., having its
office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, PO-GPO, PS-Kotwali, District-Ranchi
(Jharkhand)
4. The General Manager (MP & RECTT), Central Coalfields Ltd.,
having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, PO-GPO, PS-Kotwali,
District-Ranchi (Jharkhand)
5. The Project Officer, Amlo Project, B & K Area, Central Coalfields
Ltd., P.O. & P.S.-Bermo, District-Bermo (Jharkhand)
... .... Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Kartik Mahto, son of Chhuman Mahto, resident of Village-Amlo
Basti, P.O.-Amlo, P.S.-Bermo District-Bokaro (Jharkhand)
... ..... Writ Petitioner/ Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
: Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate
------
ORAL JUDGMENT
04/Dated: 24.03.2022 The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters 2 Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 13.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.6122 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 17.01.2018, by which, the case of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground under Clause 9.3.0. of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) was rejected, has been quashed and set aside with a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground by accepting the joining of the writ petitioner pursuant to appointment letter already issued on 28.07.2016 forthwith.
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:-
The father of the writ petitioner was working as Piece Rated Worker at Dhori Area under the respondent CCL. While working, the father of the writ petitioner was declared medically unfit as per the recommendation of the Medical Board. The respondent authority has removed the name of father of the writ petitioner from the service roll of Dhori Colliery vide office order dated 11.07.2015. The writ petitioner was appointed vide letter dated 28.07.2016, on being found the father of the writ petitioner as medically unfit.
When the writ petitioner reported on duty, he was referred to the Medical Board for assessment of correct age, though, the writ petitioner was having a birth certificate issued on 31.07.1995. The Medical Board has assessed the age of the writ petitioner to be 37 ½ years as on 27.12.2017 and keeping the fact into consideration that the maximum age for appointment is 35 years, his case was rejected vide order dated 17.01.2018.
The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the same, has approached 3 this Court by filing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.6122 of 2019.
The writ petitioner took the ground that he was assessed to be 37 ½ years as on 27.12.2017 by the Medical Board, which is not sustainable in the eye of law, in view of the fact that the writ petitioner has a valid birth certificate issued by the competent authority, in which, his date of birth was duly been recorded as 15.09.1985.
While on the other hand, the plea was taken on behalf of the respondent CCL that during the process of joining, Form-'O' was to be filled up by the writ petitioner and the medical practitioner assessed the age of the writ petitioner to be 38 years but thereafter, the writ petitioner was referred for age assessment before the Medical Board, in which, his age was assessed to be more 35 years i.e., 37 ½ years and as such, does not come within the ambit of Clause 9.4.0. of the NCWA and therefore, the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on the ground of medical unfitness of his father, has rightly been rejected.
Learned Single Judge after appreciating the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and considering the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIDCO Vs. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar, (2009) 7 SCC 283 has came to the conclusive finding of illegality committed by the respondents authorities and thereby, quashed and set aside the rejection of appointment of the writ petitioner as was passed vide order dated 17.01.2018 with a direction to consider the case of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment by accepting the joining of the writ petitioner pursuant to appointment letter already issued on 28.07.2016 forthwith, which is the subject matter of the present intra- court appeal.
3. Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has 4 submitted that the learned Single Judge without appreciating the fact about the age determined by the Medical Board, by which, the writ petitioner has been found to be not eligible so far as the criteria of age is concerned as provided under NCWA, wherein, the maximum age to get an appointment on compassionate ground is 35 years.
It has further been submitted that the learned Single Judge instead of considering the age assessed by the Medical Board, has considered the age recorded in the birth certificate issued by the authority concerned which cannot be said to be justified, reason being that, when the Medical Board has assessed the age, the same cannot be allowed to be prevailed upon the date of birth recorded in the birth certificate, thereby, the learned Single Judge has committed gross error by passing the impugned order, wherein, the order passed by the administrative authority dated 17.01.2018 has been quashed and set aside.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant CCL, perused the documents available on record as also considered the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge.
5. The undisputed fact in this case is that the writ petitioner was provided appointment vide letter dated 28.07.2016 on the ground that father of the writ petitioner was declared medically unfit by the duly constituted Medical Board. The writ petitioner, in terms of the offer of appointment, when reported to give his joining to the said post, he was subjected to the Medical Board, in which, his age was assessed to be more than 35 years i.e., 37 ½ years. The writ petitioner was objected the decision of the authority concerned of subjecting him for medical assessment for determination of age on the ground that he was having the date of birth certificate issued by the competent authority, as per the 5 statutory provision.
The appellant Management has given no heed to that and on the basis of the age assessed by the Medical Board i.e., 37 ½ years, his claim for appointment was rejected and being aggrieved with the same, writ petition being W.P.(S) No.6122 of 2019 has been filed, wherein, the aforesaid order was quashed and set aside by taking into consideration the date of birth recorded in the birth certificate issued by the competent authority under the provision of law pertaining to issuance of death and birth certificate.
6. The issue has been raised on behalf of the appellants that the date of birth recorded in the birth certificate ought not have prevailed upon the age assessed by the Medical Board, wherein, the age of the writ petitioner was found to be more than 35 years.
7. It is not in dispute that the maximum age for appointment on compassionate ground as per the condition stipulated in the NCWA, is 35 years. Therefore, this Court is required to answer the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge which led in quashing the order dated 17.01.2018 by taking into consideration the date of birth recorded in the birth certificate issued by the competent authority by giving go-by to the date of birth assessed by the Medical Board i.e., 37 ½ years.
The learned Single Judge has considered the date of birth recorded in the birth certificate issued by the competent authority under the law pertaining to issuance of death and birth certificate.
8. It requires to refer herein is that the aforesaid birth certificate was issued on 31.07.1995 by the Statistical and Evaluation Directorate, the erstwhile State of Bihar under Form-'9' bearing no.103432, appended as Annexure-7 to the writ petition, recorded therein the date of birth of the 6 writ petitioner as 15.09.1985, under the seal and signature of the Registrar, Bermo, Block, Bermo (Bokaro), the competent authority.
The offer of appointment issued in favour of the writ petitioner was dated 28.07.2016, therefore, admittedly, herein, the date of birth certificate which was issued on 31.07.1995, is much much prior to issuance of offer of appointment.
9. The question about validity of birth certificate issued by the competent authority, fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIDCO Vs. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar (Supra), wherein, at paragraph-18, it has been laid down that the deaths and births register maintained by the statutory authorities raises a presumption of correctness. Such entries made in the statutory registers are admissible in evidence in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act. It would prevail over an entry made in the school register, particularly in absence of any proof that same was recorded at the instance of the guardian of the respondent, for the ready reference, pargraph-18 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"18. "The deaths and births register maintained by the statutory authorities raises a presumption of correctness. Such entries made in the statutory registers are admissible in evidence in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act. It would prevail over an entry made in the school register, particularly in absence of any proof that same was recorded at the instance of the guardian of the respondent."
Thus, it is evident that the birth certificate, was issued by the statutory authority, therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex in CIDCO Vs. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar (Supra), there is no dispute that the date of birth recorded in the birth certificate of the writ petitioner, cannot be doubted.
7
10. So far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant CCL is concerned about assessment of age of the writ petitioner by the Medical Board, according to the considered view of this Court that there was no occasion with the CCL Management to subject the writ petitioner for determination of his age through the Medical Board in presence of the birth certificate having been issued by the statutory authority but even though, the writ petitioner was subjected to the Medical Board for determination of his age, although, therein, the age of the writ petitioner was assessed to be 37 ½ years, basis upon which, his claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected.
The appellant CCL while rejecting the case basing upon the determination of age by the Medical Board cannot be said to be a proper decision, since, the writ petitioner has produced the birth certificate having been issued by the competent authority and thereby, committed gross irregularity in snatching away the right of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, as per the offer of appointment dated 28.07.2016.
Further, there is no question of suspicion, since, the birth certificate was much much prior to issuance of offer of appointment letter, which was issued on 31.07.1995. The matter would have been different if the birth certificate would have been issued after issuance of offer of appointment but that is not the case herein.
11. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration these aspects of the matter in entirety and after discussing the scope of appointment provided under the National Coal Wage Agreement, has came to the conclusive finding that the case of the writ petitioner ought to have been considered on the basis of the age having been mentioned in 8 the birth certificate, as per which, the writ petitioner was within the eligibility criteria so far as the maximum age i.e., 35 years in view of the provision of NCWA and thereby, has quashed the order of rejection dated 17.01.2018, which according to the considered view of this Court, cannot be said to suffer from infirmity.
12. The learned Single Judge has also considered the fact about assessment of age by the Medical Board by holding therein that if the date of birth of the writ petitioner assessed by the Medical Board as 27.06.1980 taken into account, the age of the writ petitioner would be as 36 years 1 month and 1 day on the date of issuance of appointment letter i.e., on 28.07.2016 and as such, it has been recorded that there is always possibility of errors of two years (plus)/(minus) in assessing the age by the Medical Board, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the writ petitioner and not the respondents and by making such observation, the learned Single Judge, is correct by giving benefit of doubt in favour of the writ petitioner.
13. This Court in the entirety of facts as discussed above is of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with.
14. In the result, the instant appeal fails and is, dismissed.
15. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.) (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Rohit/-
N.A.F.R.