The Jharkhand High Court dismissed an appeal against the single judge order dated 13.01.2021 by which representation of the petitioner for correction has been refused to be interfered with. A division bench of this Court comprising Hon’ble Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Navneet Kumar affirmed the order of single judge bench and held that it is not open to challenge the issue of date of birth at the fag end of service especially when the petitioner has consciously participated in medical examination and accepted the age assessed by it by putting his signature.
Brief Facts:
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner along with 75 others had raised Industrial Dispute for employment which was awarded vide Award dated 14.08.2000. The said award was challenged up-to Hon’ble Supreme Court and thereafter it was given effect to. It is case of the management since there was no proof of age of the concerned workmen in whose favour award was passed, the management referred the petitioner along with others before the Medical Board for assessment of age where the age of the petitioner was assessed as 47 years and 6 months as on 14.12.2010 and accordingly his date of birth was recorded as 14.06.1963 in all service excerpts including statutory Form B Register wherein the petitioner consciously put his signature and after lapse of about 7 years of service, the petitioner has raised the grievance before the respondent-Management that as per his educational certificate his date of birth is 04.02.1972, which was rejected.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that once the date of birth has been disclosed as 04.02.1972 on the basis of educational qualification, there was no occasion for the management to ask the writ petitioner to participate in the process of assessment of age by the Medical Board.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that it is not available for the writ petitioner to question the age assessed by the Medical Board as he appeared before the Board without any demur and accepted the age assessed by it by putting his signature.
He further contended that the age assessed by the Medical Board has not been challenged by the petitioner and after lapse of about 7 years and at the fag end of service by filing representation on 05.04.2018, the petitioner disputed the date of birth recorded by the Medical Board which was rejected vide order dated 13.01.2021, the same was challenged by filing writ petition. The learned Single Judge taking into consideration the aforesaid fact has dismissed the writ petition by refusing to interfere with the impugned order dated 13.01.2021 and the same cannot be said to suffer from error. Hence, he pleaded that the instant intra-court lacks merit and was liable to be dismissed.
Observations of the Court:
This Court observed that so far as the sending the writ petitioner before the Medical Board is concerned that cannot be considered to be correct as per the argument advanced on behalf of appellant. In view of this Court, the writ petitioner ought to have raised objection when he was sent for medical examination for assessment of his age but he consciously participated in the medical examination and accepted the age assessed by it by putting his signature. Therefore, this Court held that once the writ petitioner has not disputed the age assessed by the Medical Board it is not available for the petitioner to question the same after lapse of about 7-8 years that too at the fag end of service.
It was evident for this Court that the learned Single Judge has considered the acceptance of date of birth by the writ petitioner as also has taken into consideration that the issue of date of birth cannot be raised at the fag end of service, and relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. T.V. Venugopalan [(1994) 6 SCC 302]. Therefore, the Court denied to interfere with the impugned order dated 13.01.2021 by which representation of the petitioner for correction has been refused to be interfered with, requires no interference by this Court.
The decision of the Court:
The Jharkhand High Court, dismissing the petition, held that no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order under challenge.
Case Title: Shobhakant Mahato vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Navneet Kumar
Case no.: L.P.A. No. 227 of 2022
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
