Shivraj Pashi vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3769 Jhar

                                        1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               W.P.(S) No. 4294 of 2009
                                ---------

     Shivraj Pashi                                           ..... Petitioner
                               Versus

1. Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman cum Managing Director, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, District- Dhanbad.

2. Chairman Cum Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, District-Dhanbad.

3. Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, District-Dhanbad.

4. Project Officer, Kustore Area, B.C.C.L, Dhanbad.

5. Agent, Burragarh Colliery, Kustore, Area, B.C.C.L, Dhanbad. ..... Respondents

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K.P. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Sidhartha J. Roy, Advocate For the BCCL : Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate

---------

20/Dated: 4th October, 2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by

the petitioner praying for quashing the notice of

superannuation dated 16.03.2009, whereby the petitioner

was informed that he will attain the age of superannuation

on attaining 60 years on 10.08.2009 as per his date of birth

recorded as 11.08.1949 and his service would be

terminated w.e.f. 31.08.2009.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner was initially appointed as minor loader on

11.08.1978 at Maheshpur Colliery on compassionate

ground. Subsequently, he completed the course of Mining

Sirdar and was promoted to the said post in the year, 1985.

Learned counsel further submits that at the time of

appointment the details of petitioner's date of birth, date of

appointment, and date of retirement has been recorded in

the statutory Form-B register. He further draws attention of

this Court towards Annexure-1, which is the Form-B

register in which the date of birth of the petitioner has been

shown as 11.08.1953. However, the service excerpt of the

petitioner was created on 22.07.1987 and in the said

service excerpts his date of birth has been recorded as 29

years as on 11.08.1978; but even in the identity card which

was issued to this petitioner; the date of birth was recorded

as 25 years as on 11.08.1978.

He further submits that subsequently another Form-

B register was created which was duly attested by

Personnel Manager, Burragarh Colliery and Personnel

Manager of Maheshpur Colliery in which the age of the

petitioner was shown as 25 years as on 11.08.1978, but the

number "25" was made as "29" by interpolation.

Learned counsel lastly submits that now the law is

well settled that if there is any dispute between two

documents with regard to date of birth, it is the duty of

respondent-authorities to send the case to Apex Medical

Board to ascertain the date of birth and admittedly

Annexure-1 & 4 are two Form-B which has not been denied

by the respondent. The contention of the respondent that

the petitioner has filed application for taking CMPF amount

and other benefits by mentioning same date; will not

improve the case of the respondent, inasmuch as,

admittedly; there is a cutting in the 2nd Form-B register, as

such, the respondents be directed to recalculate the service

period and further pay the amount of salary for the

differential period for which the petitioner could not work

due to act of the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the

averments made in the supplementary counter affidavit and

submits that the petitioner superannuated on 31.08.2009

without any objection and thereafter, filed the instant writ

application on 10.09.2009. He further draws attention of

this Court towards paragraph no. 10 of the counter-

affidavit and submits that the petitioner was initially

appointed at Govindpur Area where his Form-B was created

and his age was mentioned as 29 years as on 11.08.1978.

Further, in his service excerpts also the age of the petitioner

has been mentioned as 29 years as on 11.08.1978;

however, when the petitioner was subsequently transferred

to Kustore area; a fresh Form-B was prepared under the

relevant provision of Mine Rules and then the petitioner

disclosed his date of birth as 11.08.1953 and got it

recorded in the subsequent Form-B register.

This specific averment has not been denied by the

petitioner by way of any rejoinder. It has further been

submitted by the learned counsel that Annexure-1 is the

Form-B which was prepared after the petitioner was

transferred to Kustore area and the first Form-B is in fact

annexed as Annexure-4. He further relied upon paragraph

17 and submits that the petitioner never cared to produce

the original Mining Sirdar Certificate since he was aware

that he had disclosed altogether a different date of birth in

the said certificate. He lastly submits that now the law is

well settled that at the fag end of service the employee

cannot raise the dispute with respect to correction in the

date of birth.

In the instant case it is not only the fag end of

service; rather the petitioner has filed the instant writ

application after taking the entire monetary benefits and

after the date of retirement, as such no relief can be

granted to this petitioner.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

after going through the documents annexed with the

respective affidavits and the averments made therein it

appears that Annexure-1 is the Form-B Register, but by

going through the said document, it appears that it was

opened subsequently when the petitioner was transferred to

Kustore area and the 1st Form B was created at the time of

initial appointment which is Annexure-4 where his date of

birth has been mentioned as 29 years as on 11.08.1978.

It further transpires that the petitioner himself

disclosed his date of birth and his age as 29 years as on

11.08.1978 i.e. on the date of his appointment which is

evident from the extract of service excerpts and by taking

the same date of birth and same documents; the petitioner

applied for provident fund before the CMPF-authorities and

received the entire amount of CMPF and/or pension etc.

6. It furthermore transpires from record that the

petitioner was well informed six months before the date of

his retirement. Thereafter, the petitioner made a casual

representation before the concerned respondent and

pursuant thereto; a letter was written to the petitioner on

19.02.2009 to produce the original certificate of Mining

Sirdar. However, for the reasons best known to the

petitioner, he never produced the original certificate of

Mining Sirdar and simply accepted the retirement and also

withdrew the entire CMPF amount along with Pension by

filing the necessary forms by entering the same date of

birth as recorded in Annexure-4.

Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of

judgments has held that any grievance related to date of

birth of an employee cannot be agitated at the fag end of

service and in the instant case it clearly transpires that the

notice of retirement was given to this petitioner on

16.03.2009 indicating therein that the petitioner will

superannuate at the age of 60 years on 10.08.2009. At the

cost of repetition, though after receiving the impugned

notice he made a representation but when he was asked to

produce the original certificate; he never produced the same

and accepted the retirement and also withdrew the entire

post retiral benefits by filing necessary forms by entering

the same date of birth as recorded in 1st Form-B (Annexure-

4) i.e. 29 years as on 11.08.1978.

7. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I do not find any

merit in this case and no relief can be granted to this

petitioner. Consequently, this application is dismissed.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/