Jharkhand High Court
Dashrath Prasad Mahto vs The Chairman Cum Managing ... on 17 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 847 of 2021
-----------
Dashrath Prasad Mahto. ... ... ... ...Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The Chairman cum Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited
(A subsidiary of Coal India Ltd.), At-Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar,
P.O.+ P.S.+ Dist. Dhanbad.
2. The Director (Personnel), At-Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.+ P.S.+
District-Dhanbad.
3. The General Manager, Putkee Balihari Area (BCCL), P.O. Kusunda,
P.S. Putki, District-Dhanbad.
4. The Project Officer, Putkee Balihari Area (B.C.C.L.) P.O. Kusunda,
P.S. Putki, District-Dhanbad. ... ... ... ...Respondents
-----------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK
(Through: Video Conferencing)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
-----------
04/ 17.06.2021 The petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 10/11.11.2020 and
24/25.11.2020 whereby and whereunder his claim for correction in date of birth as per
the 10th certificate i.e. Madhyama examination has been rejected.
As per factual matrix, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate
ground on 17-18.05.1996 under para 9:4:2 of NCWA- IV as 'Fitter Helper (T)' and was
posted at the office of General Manager (MRD) at Potkee Balihar Area, Dhanbad for
field training.
It is specific case of the petitioner that at the time of Medical
Examination he had furnished his 10th mark-sheet/certificate issued by the Registrar,
Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Bihar wherein the date of birth of
the petitioner was mentioned as 10.02.1965 but inadvertently date of birth of the
petitioner was recorded in Form-B as 09.02.1962. The petitioner was under impression
that his date of birth in his service excerpts must have been recorded as 10.02.1965 as
per his matriculation certificate. But it was only in the year 2016 he came to know that
his date of birth has wrongly been entered as 09.02.1962 in place of 10.02.1965.
Thereafter on the basis of Matriculation Certificate, the petitioner made several
representation to the concerned authorities but no heed was paid to his representation
and finally the same was rejected vide order dated 10.11.2020 and 24.11.2020. Hence,
the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court challenging the aforesaid orders.
Mr. Pramod kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues
that the petitioner has cleared Matriculation Examination much prior to his appointment
i.e. in the year 1981. Matriculation certificate which carries the date of birth of the
petitioner was duly submitted at the time of appointment i.e. in the year 1996. The
petitioner was having impression that the date of birth entered in the service excerpt is
as per the Matriculation certificate and as such he had not raised any objection. It was
only after 20 years of service, he came to know that an imaginary date of birth has been
entered in the service excerpt as 09.02.1962.
Learned Counsel further argued that Matriculation certificate was issued
by the Registrar, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Bihar and the same
was found to be genuine and as such direction be given to the respondents to correct the
date of birth in the service records as per Matriculation certificate.
Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed.
Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel representing the B.C.C.L.
vehemently opposes the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and argues
that issues regarding date of birth is no more res integra. In plethora of judgments, this
Court has held that date of birth even wrongly mentioned in the service excerpt cannot
be a subject of correction at the fag end of service career and as the petitioner has
approached the authorities after 20 years of service there is no scope for correction of
the same as per matriculation certificate. Learned Counsel further argues that as per
N.C.W.A. dispute regarding date of birth has to be raised within a reasonable period
preferably within a period of 10 years. In the instant case the same has been raised after
20 years of service.
Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the
parties across the bar, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for
interference. The petitioner claims to have submitted the certificate at the time of
appointment but upon perusal of records it appears that date of birth as mentioned in
Form "B" Register and I.D. card Register is 09.02.1962 which was very much known
to the petitioner. Form B Register is a statutory document of the B.C.C.L. which has
force of law and cannot be disputed. In catena of decision it has been held by this Court
that it is impermissible for the employer as well as the employee to raise the dispute
regarding date of birth at the fag end of service. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
"State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vrs. Premlal Shrivas", reported in 2011 (9) SCC
664 has categorically held that:
"Para 8. It needs to be emphasized that in matters involving
correction of date of birth of a government servant, particularly
on the eve of his superannuation or at the fag end of his career,
the court or the tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious and
careful while issuing direction for correction of date of birth,
recorded in the service book at the time of entry into any
government service. Unless the court or the tribunal is fully
satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to his date
of birth and that such a claim is made in accordance with the
procedure prescribed or as per the consistent procedure adopted
by the department concerned, as the case may be, and a real
injustice has been caused to the person concerned, the court or
the tribunal should be loath to issue a direction for correction of
the service book. Time and again this Court has expressed the
view that if a government servant makes a request for correction
of the recorded date of birth after lapse of a long time of his
induction into the service, particularly, beyond the time fixed by
his employer, he cannot claim, as a matter of right, the
correction of his date of birth, even if he has good evidence to
establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. No
court or the tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over
their rights."
The same view was reiterated by this Court in case of "Ajit Singh vrs.
M/s Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., Jamshedpur through its Manager, H.R./I.R. Legal
passed in W.P. (L) No. 1251 of 2010 disposed of on 05.10.2020.
Resultantly, this Court finds that no case is made out for interference and
the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
[Dr. S.N.Pathak,J]
P.K.S.
