Jharkhand High Court
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (Bccl) ... vs Shobh Nath Singh on 11 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
L.P.A. No. 26 of 2018
1. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (BCCL) through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director/Director Personnel; having its office at Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar,
PO & PS Saraidhela, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand, through its authorized
signatory Shree Bhagwan Prasad, son of Shree Chandrika Prasad, Project
Officer, Madhuband Coal Washery, resident of Quarter No. D-10, Dugda
Washery Colony, PO & PS Dugda, District Bokaro (Jharkhand).
2. The General Manager, BCCL, Block II Area, Dumra More, PO & PS
Baghmara, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
3. Personnel Manager, BCCL, Madhuban Coal Washery, Block II Area,
Dumra More, PO & PS Baghmara, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
4. Project Officer, BCCL, Madhuban Coal Washery, Block II Area, Dumra
More, PO & PS Baghmara, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
... ... Appellants
Versus
1. Shobh Nath Singh, s/o late Gauri Shankar Singh, resident of Harna
Township, B-217, PO Nawagarh, PS Barora, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
2. Deputy Secretary (Vig), Bihar School Examination Board, PO, GPO & PS
Kotwali, Patna, District Patna. ... ... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
-------
For the Appellants-BCCL : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ramit Satender, Advocate
For the BSEB : Mr. S.P. Roy, G.A (Bihar)
Mr. Binit Chandra, AC to G.A (Bihar)
--------
ORDER
11th August 2022
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar,J.
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (in short, 'BCCL') is in appeal against
the order dated 13th September 2017 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1533 of 2010.
2. By this order, the writ Court accepted the challenge laid by
Shobh Nath Singh who is the respondent no.1 before us to the notice of
retirement dated 27th June 2009.
3. Mr. Amit Kr. Das, the learned counsel for BCCL submits that
the writ Court could not have entertained the plea regarding correction in
date of birth of the respondent no.1 raised at the fag end of his service and,
in any view of the matter, the respondent no.1 is bound by the entries in
the service records and Form B, which were duly signed by him.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant refers to the judgment in
"Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others v. Shyam Kishore Singh" (2020)
SCC Online 126 to fortify his submission.
5. In the proceedings before writ Court, the respondent no.1 set
up a plea that in the Matriculation certificate his date of birth is recorded as
8th January 1952, however, it was not correctly recorded in the service
excerpts and statutory Form B filled up by the management of BCCL. It
was pleaded by the respondent no.1 that the Matriculation certificate and
mark-sheet issued to him by the Bihar School Examination Board were
sent for verification and the Examination Board informed the respondent
no.4 that the certificates issued to the respondent no.1 were valid and
genuine.
6. Before the writ Court, the verification report dated 23 rd
January 2010 from Bihar School Examination Board as requested by the
Project Officer, BCCL, Madhuban Coal Washery, Dumra More, Dhanbad
was produced.
7. The learned Single Judge referred to a Full Bench judgment in
"Kamta Pandey v. M/s BCCL" 2007 (3) JCR 681 Jhr (FB) and "Digvijay
Singh v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director/Director Personnel Dhanbad & Ors." 2008 (3) JCR 611 (Jhr) and
Implementation Instruction No. 76 to come to a conclusion that the
respondent no.1 was illegally forced to superannuate from service with
effect from 31st December 2009, on the basis of wrong entry in his service
records.
8. The writ Court has held as under:
"7. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents
that in the matriculation certificate, the name of the petitioner
was mentioned as Sobha Nath Singh and not Shobh Nath Singh
is not acceptable. The matter is duly verified and enquired from
the B.S.E.B, Patna in which certificate was found to be genuine.
The petitioner did not approach the respondents authorities at
the fag end of service rather much before i.e. in the year
1986/1987 itself. The petitioner already made an objection
regarding date-of-birth entered into the service excerpts. It was
the respondents who intentionally delayed the matter and did
not take a decision on the basis of matriculation certificate of
the petitioner. In similar case, the respondents authorities have
already corrected the date-of-birth after retirement and as such
in the case of the petitioner, no steps has been taken rather it has
been turned down, which shows the discriminatory attitude of
the respondents. The case of the petitioner was also
recommended by the Department for correction in the date-of-
birth, which finds place in the supplementary affidavit, filed by
the petitioner.
8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, rules, guidelines
and judicial pronouncement, this writ petition is allowed. The
respondents BCCL are directed to correct the petitioner's date of
birth in the service record as per the entry of date of birth in
matriculation certificate. The petitioner, who has been made to
prematurely retire, shall be deemed to have attained the age of
superannuation on the basis of his date of birth recorded in the
Matriculation Certificate i.e. 08.01.1952. I hereby quashed the
impugned notice of retirement dated 27.06.2009 bearing
reference No. 409 issued by the Project Officer whereby the
petitioner has been informed that he would retire from the
services of the Company on completion of 60 years on
31.12.2009. The said notice is not legally sustainable in the eyes
of law. Since the petitioner had been forced to stop working by
the said illegal notice of retirement by the respondents, he shall
be entitled to get all consequential benefits for the intervening
period including the arrears of salary/allowances etc. The
arrears of the salary shall be paid to the petitioner within a
period of six weeks from the date receipt/production of a copy of
this order.
9. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the writ
petition stands allowed."
9. Briefly stated, the respondent no.1 was employed under
Shivam Singh and Company Ltd. on 17th July 1970. After nationalization
of the coal mines, the management of Shivam Singh and Company Ltd.
was taken over by BCCL and the respondent no.1 came to be employed
under BCCL. In the service excerpts opened by BCCL, the date of birth of
the respondent no.1 was recorded as 11 th December 1949 and on that basis
the notice of retirement dated 27th June 2009 was issued to him. On the
other hand, the respondent no.1 took a stand that by letters dated 22 th
March 1996, 25th July 1997, 29th May 1998, 30th May 1998 and 1st June
1998 he raised grievance through union in respect of incorrect recording of
his date of birth in the service excerpts and Form B and that he was
assured by the Management of BCCL that correct date of birth as recorded
in the Matriculation certificate shall be entered in his service records.
10. By filing a supplementary affidavit dated 2 nd September 2011,
the respondent no.1 brought on record a document which would disclose
that the management itself recommended for correction in date of birth of
the respondent no.1.
11. The powers of the writ Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India are plenary and except the self imposed restrictions
there is no fetters on the powers of the writ Court, wherever State action is
found illegal, arbitrary and against the natural justice. In a catena of
judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the law regarding the
dispute on date of birth. Recently in "Karnataka Rural Infrastructure
Development Limited v. T. P. Nataraja & Ors." 2021 SCC OnLine SC 767
the Hon'ble Supreme Court after examining the previous judgments has
held as under:
"22. Considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court the law
on change of date of birth can be summarized as under:
(i) application for change of date of birth can only be as per the
relevant provisions/regulations applicable;
(ii) even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed
as a matter of right;
(iii) application can be rejected on the ground of delay and
latches also more particularly when it is made at the fag end of
service and/or when the employee is about to retire on attaining
the age of superannuation."
12. No doubt a plea for correction in date of birth is normally not
entertained at the fag end of the service of the employee but in cases where
it is established that the employer did not act upon various representations
made by the employee, the Court may interfere in the matter in appropriate
cases. The present is one such case in which the writ Court found action of
the management of BCCL illegal. The stand taken by the respondent no.1
is supported by the Matriculation certificate and the management's own
recommendation for correction in date of birth of the respondent no.1. As
noticed above, as many as five representations were made by the
respondent no.1 through union for correction in his date of birth and,
acting pursuant thereof, the Project Officer, BCCL wrote a letter to the
Bihar School Examination Board on 25th October 2008 seeking
verification of the Matriculation certificate and mark-sheet submitted by
the respondent no.1, showing his date of birth on 8th January 1952.
13. In the aforesaid facts, it cannot be said that the respondent no.1
raised a dispute as regards his date of birth at the fag end of his service.
Rather, it was the notice of retirement dated 27 th June 2009,
notwithstanding the verification report from the Bihar School Examination
Board, that compelled the respondent no.1 to approach the writ Court.
14. In the above facts, we find no ground to interfere with the
order passed by the writ Court and, accordingly, L.P.A. No. 26 of 2018 is
dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
RKM
