Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

ORDER ON BOARD Per Navin Sinha, Acg. C.J.

27.02.2015

1. The present appeal assails order dated 21.8.2014 allowing Writ Petition (S) No. 4161 of 2012. The Learned Single Judge has directed the Appellants to correct the date of birth of the Respondent according to his matriculation certificate issued in 1974 as 23.1.1955. Directions have further been given to reinstate him in service with consequential benefits till he would superannuate in January 2015.

7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submit that the order of the Learned Single Judge is well considered and reasoned calling for no interference. Implementation Instruction No. 76 (hereinafter called 'I I 76') issued by the Appellants for correction of errors in the date of birth was noticed and approved in 2014 AIR SCW 2364 (M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Chhota Birsa Uranw). It provides that if the matriculation certificate was available mentioning the date of birth, it had to be treated as authentic. There was no occasion for the Appellants to re-determine his date of birth. The ADC has not denied his matriculation certificate but only opined that it was not submitted at the time of appointment.

8. It was next submitted that in the Coal Mines Provident Fund Form filled as early as 2.2.1975, the date of birth was mentioned as 23.1.1955 which was in accord with that mentioned in the matriculation certificate. The same date is mentioned in the Service certificate issued by the Appellants also. This was based on entries in the Matriculation certificate. Obviously the earlier date of birth mentioned was an error or omission. It was for this reason that the Appellants on 17.8.1997 had asked him if he desired to make any corrections. It is next submitted that his initial appointment on 14.12.1975 was made on basis of his I.T.I. qualification. The Appellants never asked him to produce his matriculation certificate. No sooner that he filled up the pension and nomination form in May, 1998, he filed a representation as early as on 14.7.1998 with regard to the error asking for correction of his date of birth as 23.1.1955.

12. Even if the qualification for regular appointment was I.T.I. training certificate and the Appellants did not ask for his matriculation certificate, the Respondent offers no explanation how his date of birth came to be recorded as 14.12.1952 in the Statutory Form 'B' register on two occasions and signed by him. Surely if he was in possession of a matriculation certificate at the time of his appointment, he would have objected to the recorded date of birth and relied by production of his matriculation certificate. No explanation has been offered by the Respondent. The matriculation certificate therefore may have to be the subject of further enquiry itself. There will have to be sanctity to the date of birth mentioned in the statutory register as compared to any other document. The Respondent is alone answerable for his travails.