Jharkhand High Court
Sitaram Saw vs The Bharat Coking Coal Limited ... on 11 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 5952 of 2022
----
Sitaram Saw, S/o Gobardhan Saw, R/o Bhowra No.7, Bhowra, Bada
Bangla, Kanchanpur, P.O., P.S. & Dist.-Dhanbad.
... Petitioner
-versus-
1. The Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman-Cum-Managing
Director having its office at Koyla Bhavan, Dhanbad
2. The Director Personnel, BCCL, having its office at Koyla Bhavan,
Dhanbad
3. General Manager, (Civil) Civil Engineering Department, BCCL
Headquarter, BCCL, having its office at Koyla Bhavan, Dhanbad
... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate
----
04/ 11.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
appearing for the respondents.
2. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.08.2022 by which
the respondents have passed a direction that the petitioner would
superannuate on 31.12.2022, treating his date of birth as 01.01.1963.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in all the records, which is
maintained by the respondents-Company, age of the petitioner is mentioned
as 22 years as on 08.02.1991 and that being so, he cannot be made to
superannuate on 31.12.2022, rather his superannuation date would be in
February 2029 on attaining the age of superannuation. It is his contention that
the respondents have come up with a computerized system, namely, Non-
Executive Information System (NEIS). In NEIS, all the data relating to
employees of the Company are entered and due to manual error, the date of
birth has been wrongly filled in the System, which resulted in the entire
controversy.
4. Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner
cannot be allowed to raise or agitate any dispute in relation to his date of birth
or age at the fag end of his service. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Others
versus Shyam Kishore Singh reported in (2020) 3 SCC 411. After going
through the Counter Affidavit, he submits that in the service records including
the statutory records, the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as
08.02.1969, but in the NEIS, his date of birth has been mentioned as
01.01.1963.
5. I have heard the parties and have gone through the records. The
statutory records have been brought on record as Annexure. Annexure 1 is the
appointment letter, which was issued on 26/29th March, 1991, wherein his age
was shown as 22 years as on 08.02.1991. Another record is at Annexure 2,
which is the Examination Report of the Medical Board, which assessed his age
as 22 years as on 08.02.1991. Annexure 3 is the Identity Card, which
mentions his age as 22 years as on 08.02.1991. Service Book of the petitioner
records his age as 22 years on 08.02.1991. The Form 'B' Register also
records the date of birth of the petitioner as 08.02.1969, which is on the basis
of the medical examination. In the service particulars, which was handed over
to the petitioner, his age and/or date of birth was shown as either 22 years on
08.02.1991 or 08.02.1969. Thus, all records suggest the date of birth of the
petitioner to be 08.02.1969. Anomaly arose when data was filled in NEIS,
wherein it was entered as 01.01.1963. This is an apparent error. In fact, it is
not a change of date of birth, rather, it is a wrong entry made in the system. It
is an error of the Data Entry Operator, which is apparent. The judgment, which
is being referred to and relied on by the respondents, does not match with the
facts of this case. In this writ petition, the prayer is to maintain the date of birth
of this petitioner, which is recorded in all the service records.
6. In view of what has been held above, this writ petition is bound to
be allowed. Impugned order dated 30.08.2022 is hereby quashed. The date of
birth of the petitioner be treated as 08.02.1969 and the date of superannuation
of the petitioner will be strictly in terms of his date of birth as 08.02.1969. The
period of 15 days when the petitioner was made to sit idle, will be treated as in
service and all the monetary benefits arising therefrom will accrue in favour of
the petitioner.
7. This writ petition, accordingly, stands allowed.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/S.KCp-02
