Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It is further the case of the appellant/writ-petitioner that the nominee form of the appellant/writ-petitioner was prepared on 26.06.1987 and in that also, the date of birth of the appellant/writ-

petitioner has been given as 08.12.1954. Subsequently, when he was transferred to Sudamdih Coal Washsery, a new Form 'B' was prepared by the respondent-management, it is only then the appellant/writ-petitioner got information regarding change of his date of birth, upon getting such information, the appellant/writ- petitioner represented before the respondent-authorities to correct his date of birth as per the CMPF record of 13.07.1994 but the respondents have sat tight over the matter for several years and finally vide letter dated 30.05.2012 the respondents informed the appellant/writ-petitioner that he is going to retire on 30.11.2012, thereafter, vide letter dated 05.07.2013, the appellant/writ-petitioner was informed to appear before the Medical Board, Koyla Nagar Hospital on 10.07.2013 at 9:30 a.m., after a year of his retirement, therefore, the appellant/writ-petitioner approached to this Court for ventilating his grievance that he be treated in service treating his date of birth as mentioned in the CMPF record as 08.12.1954, however, the same has been dismissed inter alia on the ground that the writ petition has been filed after three years from the date of his retirement.

4. The instant appeal has been preferred inter alia on the ground that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition relying upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it has been decided that the issue of date of birth cannot be allowed to be agitated at the fag end of service but according to the learned counsel for the appellant/writ-petitioner it is a case where the ratio laid down in the judgments to the effect as referred in the impugned order would not be applicable as because the appellant/writ- petitioner raised the issue for the first time by filing an application on 13.07.1994 as would appear from Annexure-4 series appended to the paperbook and thereafter series of representations have been filed as have been brought on record, in pursuance thereto, finally the respondent-authorities have come out with a communication issued by the Senior Officer Personnel, Sudamdih Shaft Mines addressed to the Deputy Manager (P) SCW, Sudamdih Coal Washery whereby and whereunder the fact has been admitted to the effect that the name of the appellant/writ-petitioner does not appear in the Form 'B' register in as much as in the year 1976 after explosion in Shaft Mine-Sudamdih, the old Form 'B' register was seized by DGMS and court of inquiry was held later on. Then a fresh Form 'B' register was prepared in the year 1986 in which the name of the appellant/writ-petitioner does not appear. His name only appeared in the ID Card Register and date of appointment is only written as 28.12.1975 but his date of birth was not available, no medical board report is also available, however, reference of the CMPF has been made therein which finds mention the date of birth of the appellant/writ-petitioner as 08.12.1954, in pursuance to the said communication, the Deputy General Manager has given a note for immediate action into the matter but instead of taking any action in the matter for resolving the dispute a notice of retirement dated 30.05.2012 was issued communicating the appellant/writ-petitioner about his superannuation w.e.f. 30.11.2012 and as such, the respondent-authorities without adjudicating and settling the dispute, although have considered by taking into consideration the CMPF record wherein the date of birth is mentioned as 08.12.10954, no action has been taken.

16. It is evident therefrom that the Deputy Manager Personnel SCW has also directed for immediate action into the matter but no action has been taken ultimately the order of superannuation has been issued on 30.05.2012 informing the appellant/writ-petitioner about his superannuation w.e.f. 30.11.2012.

17. This Court after considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter as discussed hereinabove since has arrived to a conclusion that the dispute as has been agitated by the respondent BCCL cannot be held to be genuine dispute rather according to our considered view when it is the admitted case of the respondent-BCCL that due to explosion the original Form 'B' has already been seized and while preparing fresh Form 'B' Register the name of the appellant/writ- petitioner does not found mentioned, the authority ought to have taken into consideration the date of birth recorded in the other document which was available before the CMPF which is also a statutory body wherein the date of birth was recorded as 08.12.1954 and in turn thereof, Deputy Manager Personnel SCW, Sudamdih Coal Washery has directed to conduct an inquiry in the matter but reason best known to the respondent-BCCL that in spite of conducting an inquiry and taking into consideration the date of birth recorded in the CMPF record as 08.12.1954 why the notice of retirement was issued on 30.05.2012 which has not been answered by the learned counsel for the respondent-BCCL, however, at this juncture, it has been submitted that the appellant/writ-petitioner was directed to appear before the Medical Board for age assessment on 05.07.2013 but according to the respondent-BCCL the appellant/writ-petitioner chosen not to appear and as such his case is not fit to be considered but we are not in agreement with such ground as because the appellant/writ-petitioner since has already been superannuated from service w.e.f. 30.11.2012 as such, there was no reason asking the appellant/writ-petitioner to appear before the Medical Board for his age assessment.

Further for the reason that since in the statutory record, i.e., of CMPF, the date of birth of the appellant/writ-petitioner has been recorded as 08.12.1954 and as such, having no dispute considering the date of birth mentioned in the CMPF record, there was no occasion for the BCCL to ask the appellant/writ-petitioner for his age assessment.

18. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate these facts and gone into the general principle not to entertain a writ petition at the fag end of the service if the dispute pertains to the date of birth but he before coming to such conclusion ought to have considered the factual aspect involved in the instant case.