Baratu Ram vs South Eastern Caalfields Ltd. And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2097 Chatt

                                 1

                                                                     NAFR
        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
             Writ Petition (S) No. 1573 of 2012


    Baratu Ram, Aged about 54 years, S/o Late Jharhi
    Ram, R/o B­373 NCH Colony Urja Nagar, Post Gevra
    Project, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh.

                                                      ­­­Petitioner

                                Versus

  1. South   Eastern       Coalfields     Limited       through     its
    Chairman­cum­Managing             Director,      Seepat        Road,
    Bilaspur Chhattisgarh - 495006.

  2. Chief   General       Manager,    SECL,    Gevra      Area,   P.O.
    Gevra Project, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh.

                                                     ­­­Respondents

For Petitioner :­ Mr. Gary Mukopadhyay, Advocate For Respondents :­ Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board (Th. Video Conferencing)

02/09/2021

1. Petitioner's date of birth was not correctly

adjudicated by the respondents herein which led

to the filing of WPS No. 3086/2011 in which by

order dated 20/06/2011 (Annexure P/16) this

Court directed the respondents to determine the

correct date of birth of the petitioner by

referring the matter to the Age Determination

Committee in accordance with Implementation

Instruction No. 76 after giving the petitioner

proper opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, the

Age Determination Committee vide report dated

30/09/2011 made the recommendation to the

respondents that petitioner's date of birth is

01/12/1954, which was communicated by the

respondents/SECL vide impugned order dated

13/15.10.2011 (Annexure P/2) and eventually vide

order dated 29/10/2011 (Annexure P/1) it was

communicated to the petitioner that as per the

recommendation of the Age Determination

Committee, his date of birth shall not be

corrected to 27/02/1958, as such, both Annexures

P/1 and P/2 have been called in questioned by

the petitioner in the instant writ petition.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the

document (Annexure P/5) which is the copy of his

Matriculation Examination Marksheet clearly

shows that he has passed matriculation

examination from the Board of Secondary

Education, Madhya Pradesh in the year 1977 and

his date of birth has been recorded as

27/02/1958. The said document was sent for

verification by the respondents/SECL by memo

dated 05/10/2005 (Annexure P/11) and it has been

verified by Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary

Education, Raipur by letter dated 20/01/2006

(Annexure P/12) stating that petitioner has

passed his matriculation examination in the year

1977 and his date of birth is 27/02/1958.

Thereafter, again vide letter dated 03/09/2009,

the respondents requested the Regional

Commissioner, CMPF, Bilaspur to send a copy of

Form - A in order to verify petitioner's date of

birth. In reply to the said letter, the Regional

Commissioner, CMPF, Bilaspur vide his letter

dated 08/09/2009 (Annexure P/15) sent a copy of

Form­A wherein petitioner's date of birth has

clearly been recorded as 27/02/1958. Therefore,

the finding of the Age Determination Committee

holding petitioner's date of birth to be

01/12/1954 merely on the basis that the date of

issuance has not been mentioned in petitioner's

matriculation examination marksheet (Annexure

P/5) is absolutely arbitrary and is liable to be

set aside.

3. Return has been filed by the respondents

opposing the stand taken by the petitioner

stating that the Age Determination Committee has

rightly held petitioner's date of birth to be

01/12/1954 as petitioner did not produce his

matriculation examination marksheet right in

time while entering into service on 23/02/1979,

therefore, the writ petition deserves to be

dismissed.

4. Mr. Gary Mukopadhyay, learned counsel for the

petitioner, would submit that the document

(Annexure P/5), which is the copy of

petitioner's matriculation examination marksheet

clearly shows that he passed the said

examination in the year 1977 and his date of

birth therein has already been recorded as

27/02/1958, has been duly verified by the

respondents, firstly from the Chhattisgarh Board

of Secondary Education, Raipur (Annexure P/12)

and then from the Regional Commissioner, CMPF,

Bilaspur (Annexure P/15) and moreover, since the

said document (Annexure P/5) is an ear­marked

document in terms of Implementation Instruction

No. 76, it is binding on the respondents, but

vide order dated 13/15.10.2011 (Annexure P/2),

the respondent authorities have declined to

accept petitioner's date of birth as 27/02/1958

only on the ground that date of issuance has not

been mentioned in the said document (Annexure

P/5). He would rely upon the decision rendered

by this Court in the matter of Amar Singh v. Sub

Area Manager Dipka Ex. Project and Others1

which has been affirmed in Sub Area Manager and

Others v. Amar Singh2 to further submit that the

impugned orders Annexures P/1 and P/2 deserve to

be quashed and since the petitioner has retired

from service on 28/02/2014 by treating his date

of birth to be 01/12/1954, therefore, he is

entitled for all the consequential benefits from

his actual date of retirement after correcting

his date of birth as 27/02/1958.

5. Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for the

respondents, would support the impugned orders

and submit that petitioner has failed to produce

his matriculation examination marksheet

(Annexure P/5) at the time of entering into

service on 23/02/1979 and even otherwise, in the

said document (Annexure P/5), the date of

issuance has not been recorded and it is not a

document covered under Clause B(i)(a) of the

Implementation Instructions No. 76, therefore,

the said document i.e. petitioner's

matriculation examination marksheet has rightly

not been considered while determining the date

of birth of the petitioner particularly when the

date of issuance itself has not been recorded in

Annexure P/5. He would rely upon the decision

rendered by this Court in South Eastern

Coalfields Ltd. v. Amarnath Kurrey3, South

Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Kulwant Ram4 and

Amarjeet Singh v. S.E.C.L. through its C.M.D. 5

and submit that the instant writ petition

deserves to be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties,

considered their rival submissions made herein­

above and went through the records with utmost

circumspection.

7. Clause B(i)(a) of the Implementation Instruction

No. 76 would be applicable in petitioner's case

in which procedure for determination

/verification of date of birth in respect of

existing employees has been given. It states as

under :­

PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION /VERIFICATION OF AGE OF EMPLOYEES A) XXX XXX XXX B) Review determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees.

i)a) In the case of the existing employees Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the recognized Universities or Board Middle Pass Certificate issued by the Board of Education and / or Department of Public Instruction and admit cards issued by the aforesaid Bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said Universities/Boards/Institutions prior to the date of employment."

8. A careful perusal of the aforesaid clause of

Implementation Instruction No. 76 would show

that in the case of existing employee,

matriculation certificate or higher secondary

certificate issued by the recognized

Universities or Board, Middle Pass Certificate

issued by the Board of Education and / or

Department of Public Instruction and admit cards

issued by the aforesaid Bodies should be treated

as correct provided they were issued by the said

Universities/Boards/Institutions prior to the

date of employment.

9. In order to support his plea, petitioner

submitted his matriculation examination

marksheet issued in the year 1977 (Annexure P/5)

before the Age Determination Committee in which

his date of birth has been recorded as

27/02/1958. The said document (Annexure P/5) was

verified by the respondents by sending memo

dated 05/10/2005 (Annexure P/11) to which reply

was received from Chhattisgarh Board of

Secondary Education, Raipur by letter dated

20/01/2006 (Annexure P/12) stating that

petitioner has passed his matriculation

examination in the year 1977 and his date of

birth is 27/02/1958. It was again verified by

the respondents from the Regional Commissioner,

CMPF, Bilaspur by sending letter dated

03/09/2009 and in reply, the Regional

Commissioner, CMPF, Bilaspur vide his letter

dated 08/09/2009 (Annexure P/15) verified

through Form ­ A that petitioner's date of birth

is recorded as 27/02/1958.

10. As per Clause B(i)(a) of Implementation

Instruction No. 76, petitioner's matriculation

examination marksheet (Annexure P/5) is an ear­

marked document and it has been duly verified

and reverified by the respondents, but still it

has been rejected by the Age Determination

Committee only on the ground that date of

issuance has not been mentioned in the said

document (Annexure P/5). True it is that the

date of issuance has not been mentioned in

Annexure P/5, but it has been verified by the

respondents and the Chhattisgarh Board of

Secondary Education, Raipur has verified vide

letter dated 20/01/2006 (Annexure P/12) that

petitioner has passed his matriculation

examination in the year 1977 and his date of

birth is 27/02/1958. As such, merely because the

date of issuance has not been mentioned in the

document (Annexure P/5) the respondents/SECL

cannot take the ground that the said document

was issued after the date of petitioner's

entering into service. It is common knowledge

and experience that the marksheet of any

examination is issued immediately after

declaration of result and thereafter it is

supplied to the students. Even otherwise, if the

respondents/SECL was of the opinion that

petitioner's matriculation examination

certificate (Annexure P/5) has been issued after

the date of petitioner entering into service,

then it was open for the respondents/SECL to get

it verified before issuing the impugned orders

(Annexure P/1 and P/2). Moreover, the

respondents/SECL had got the document (Annexure

P/5) verified before passing the impugned orders

wherein it has been clarified that petitioner

has passed his matriculation examination in the

year 1977 and his date of birth is 27/02/1958

and it is not the case of the respondents/SECL

that petitioner has passed his matriculation

examination after entering into service. As

such, the argument raised by learned counsel for

the respondents that the finding recorded by the

Age Determination Committee is correct as the

date of issuance has not been mentioned in

petitioner's matriculation examination marksheet

(Annexure P/5), therefore, it is not an ear­

marked document as per clause B(i)(a) of the

Implementation Instruction No. 76 deserves to be

rejected.

11. In the matter of Amar Singh (supra), a similar

issue was raised wherein this Court, while

holding that since the marksheet has been

verified, proceeded to accept the certificate

without even referring the matter to the Age

Determination Committee. Paragraphs 10, 11 and

12 of the judgment state as under :­

"10. It is not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner had passed his

matriculation in the year 1965 vide Annexure P­1 i.e. prior to his entry in service. Moreover, the fact that the petitioner had passed his matriculation prior to his entry in service was also verified by the respondents from the Board vide Annexure P­9 dated 16.12.2003 and it has been confirmed by the Board that the petitioner has passed his matriculation in the year 1965 and his date of birth has been shown in the certificate as 12.09.1945.

11. Clause - B(i)(a) of the Instruction No. 76 reads as follows:­ "In the case of existing employees Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the reUniversities or Board Middle Pass Certificate issued by the Board of Education and / or Department of Public Instruction and admit cards issued by the aforesaid Bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said Universities/Boards/Institutions prior to the date of employment.

12. Once the petitioner has passed his matriculation prior to his employment, in all fairness, the respondents should have treated his date of birth as 12.09.1945 as per Clause - B(i)(a) of Instrucions No.

76."

12. The decision rendered by this Court in Amar

Singh (supra) was questioned before the Division

Bench in Writ Appeal No. 559/2011 filed by SECL

which was dismissed on 28/09/2012. However, the

judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the

respondents are clearly distinguishable and are

not applicable to the facts of the present case.

13. As such, I am of the considered view that

petitioner's date of birth ought to have been

accepted as 27/02/1958 on the basis of his

matriculation examination marksheet (Annexure

P/5) duly verified by Chhattisgarh Board of

Secondary Education, Raipur vide letter dated

20/01/2006 (Annexure P/12). The Age

Determination Committee has acted arbitrarily in

not accepting the age of the petitioner as

27/02/1958 on the ground that date of issuance

has not been mentioned in the marksheet

(Annexure P/5).

14. As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid

discussion, impugned orders dated 29.10.2011

(Annexure P/1) and 13/15.10.2011 (Annexure P/2)

are hereby quashed and petitioner's date of

birth is held to be 27/02/1958. Since, he has

retired from service on 28/02/2014 treating his

date of birth to be 01/12/1954, he will be

entitled to get all the consequential benefits

from the respondents from 01/03/2015 to

28/02/2018 within four weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order.

15. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is

allowed to the extent indicated herein­above. No

cost(s).

Sd/­ (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

Harneet