Jharkhand High Court
Shobhasit Khalkho vs The Chairman Cum Managing ... on 13 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
LPA No. 185 of 2019
-----
Shobhasit Khalkho, son of late Hanuk Khalko, resident of village Dibdih
(Pahantoli), PO and PS Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand ... Appellant
Versus
1. The Chairman cum Managing Director, Central Coalfields Limited,
Darbhanga House, PO & PS:Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. The Director Personnel, Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House,
PO & PS:Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Project Officer, Dakra Project, Piparwar, Dakra Colliery, PO-Dakra,
PS-Khalari, District: Ranchi.
4. The Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, R-1, RIADA
Building, PO & PS Ranchi, District Ranchi ... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Sriwastava, Advocate
For the Respondents : Ms. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate
-----
ORDER
13th July 2023
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
The writ petitioner who received notice of retirement dated
18th March 2018 intimating him his date of superannuation on 31 st March
2019, aggrieved thereof, approached the writ Court in WP(S) No. 4026 of
2018 which has been dismissed observing as under:
"After hearing the parties and after going through the record, I find
that petitioner had entered in service in the month of April 1984 i.e
5.4.1984. He was medically examined and his age was assessed as
28.3.1959. Though it was recorded in the original service register
as 30.9.1959, but as per the medical report it was 28.3.1959. Be it
mention that petitioner is non-matriculate. Service excerpts was
issued to the petitioner in the year 1987, on the basis of the service
register maintained by the company which was open when the
petitioner entered his service. There is no recording of any date in
the service register which can remotely suggest that date of birth of
the petitioner is 30.9.1959. Thus, this court can easily conclude
that recording of the date of birth in the service except as 30.9.1959
is erroneous. Since service register shows the date of birth of the
petitioner as 28.3.1959, it can easily be concluded that petitioner's
date of birth is 28.3.1959 which was recorded in the service
register. On the basis of the aforesaid service register,
superannuation notice was issued to the petitioner as he has to
superannuate on 31.1.2019."
2. Now he has challenged the order dated 8 th January 2019 by
which the writ Court has declined to interfere in the matter.
3. The grievance of the appellant is that the employer M/s Central
Coalfields Limited (in short, 'CCL') changed his date of birth behind his
back and thereby forced him to superannuate from service six months prior
to the actual date of retirement. According to the appellant, his correct date
of birth as recorded in the matriculation certificate is 30th September 1959
which was struck off by the CCL without any notice to him and changed to
28th March 1959. In support of the aforesaid stand, the appellant referred to
Form 'M' of Coal Mines Provident Fund which was filled up on 22 nd April
2015 and Form 'PS-3' which records 28 th March 1959 as date of birth of the
appellant. The CCL has refuted aforesaid stand of the appellant and
controverted that the employee had ever produced his matriculation
certificate at the time of joining the service. The CCL produced before the
Court the service records and Form 'B' which records age of the employee
25 years on appearance and date of birth 28th March 1959.
4. The issue regarding dispute as to date of birth has engaged
attention of the Courts in the past for about half a century. In a recent
judgment "Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd. v. T.P.
Nataraja" (2021) 12 SCC 27, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized
the law on the subject as under:
"11. Considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court the law on
change of date of birth can be summarised 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 laches
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."
5. In "Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd., the
applicant had moved an application for correction in the date of birth after
inordinate delay and in that background the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that the application for change in date of birth was liable to be rejected.
6. Now this is the law settled through a catena of decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that a mandamus cannot be issued for correction of
date of birth at the fag end of the service. In "Secretary and Commissioner,
Home Department v. R. Kirubakaran" 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that the application seeking correction in the date of
birth should be made within the time fixed by the rule/circular/notification
of the employer and in absence of any rule or order it should be made within
a reasonable time. Therefore, a writ Court exercising powers under Article
226 of the Constitution of India shall not enter into the dispute as regards
age of an employee and that too when the controversy is sought to be raised
at the fag end of the service. The logic behind not entering into such dispute
is that it may affect a large number of employees in service if correction in
the date of birth of a peer employee is permitted at the fag end of service.
The stand of the appellant that he furnished his matriculation certificate at
the time of entering into the service under the CCL is not supported by the
medical examination report which records age by appearance 25 years. Had
the appellant furnished the matriculation certificate and proof of his age as
per the Implementation Instruction-76 he could not have been sent for
medical examination. This is also common knowledge that entries in Coal
Mines Provident Fund Form and 'PS-3'/'PS-4' Forms are made on the basis
of the information supplied by the employee.
7. Mr. Abhishek Sriwastava, the learned counsel for the appellant
has, however, submitted that in counter-affidavit filed before the writ Court
the CCL has admitted that it has corrected the date of birth of the appellant
in the service records and this is also a fact that such correction has been
done without notice to the appellant. The writ Court has taken note of this
aspect of the matter and held that from the service register it is quite
apparent that the date of birth of the employee is 28 th March 1959 and, that,
there was no illegality in the office order dated 18 th March 2018 retiring the
employee on 31st March 2019.
8. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances in the
case and keeping in mind that the writ Court may not exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction in every matter where infraction of some right has
been put forth by the petitioner, LPA No. 185 of 2019 is dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated-13th July 2023
Soumya/Nibha-NAFR
