Jharkhand High Court
Laganwati Devi @ Lagnawati Devi vs The Steel Authority Of India Limited ... on 12 February, 2024
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S.N. Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 5604 of 2011
Laganwati Devi @ Lagnawati Devi .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Steel Authority of India Limited through its Chairman, Ispat
Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The General Manager (Mines), Steel Authority of India Ltd., Raw
Material Division, Singhbhum (West), Jharkhand.
3. The Assistant General Manager (Personnel & Administration),
SAIl, RMD, Kiriburi Iron Ore Mines, Singhbhum (West),
Jharkhand.
4. The Manager, Personnel (Personnel & Administration
Department), SAIL, RMD, Kiriburu Iron Ore Mines,
5. The Deputy Manager, Personnel (Personnel & Administration
Department), SAIL, RMD, Singhbhum (West).
6. The Principal, Project Central School, SAIL, RMD, Singhbhum
(West).
.... ... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Aditee Dongrawat, Advocate
-----
6/ 12.02.2023 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for
quashing of the Notice of superannuation contained in Letter No. 453
dated 22.2.2011 (Annexure-5) whereby the respondent-Management has
informed the petitioner that she shall be retired from service with effect
from 30.09.2011 on attaining the age of superannuation on 02.09.2011,
which is contrary to the date of birth as per educational certificate i.e.
5.9.1955. By filing I.A. No. 3555 of 2011, the petitioner has also prayed
for her reinstatement in service and allow her to continued work till the
actual date of superannuation on the basis of her correct date of birth as
5.9.1955. The petitioner has also prayed for consequential benefits
including the arrears of salary upon her reinstatement.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed
on the post of Attendant Gr-II vide appointment letter dated 25.8.1986
and accordingly, she joined the service on 4.9.1986 and was posted in
Project Central School, Kiriburu. It is the case of the petitioner that her
date of birth is 5.9.1955 as per transfer certificate issued on 21.10.1989
and she has duly submitted the same before the respondent-Management.
It is further case of the petitioner that the respondents have issued identity
card, medical book and pay slips which mentioned the date of birth as
5.9.1955. However, all of a sudden, the respondents have issued a notice
for retirement on 22.2.2011 intimating therein that she will be retired on
2.9.2011 on attaining the age of 60 years. Faced with the compelling
situation, the petitioner has approached this Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
matriculation certificate has to be taken into consideration by the
Management for the purpose of recording of the date of birth. Learned
counsel submits that the petitioner has submitted the transfer certificate
which mentions the date of birth of the petitioner as 5.9.1955 and
considering the same, the identity card as well as medical book and other
documents have been issued to the petitioner mentioning the correct date
of birth as 5.9.1955. However, one fine morning, the respondents have
come out the impugned notice regarding retirement which is illegal and
arbitrary. Therefore, a direction be given to the respondents to change the
date of birth of the petitioner as per transfer certificate in the service
excerpts and extend the benefits to the petitioner for remaining service
period.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
opposing the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that
the issue involved in the writ petition is no more res integra. In plethora
of judgments, it has been decided that no correction in the date of birth
can be made at the fag end of service. The employer and employee are
prohibited from making any correction in the date of birth at the fag end
of service. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has
approached the authorities only after rendering 25 years of service and as
such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay
and laches.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
gone through the entire records, this Court is of the considered view that
no interference is warranted in the writ petition for the following
reasons:-
(i) The petitioner has filed this writ petition regarding correction of
date of birth only at the fag end of service career when she was
issued the impugned notice regarding retirement. Admittedly,
the petitioner was appointed on 4.9.1986 and she raised the
dispute upon issuance of notice for retirement.
(ii) The claim of the petitioner that correction should be made as per
the transfer certificate is not accepted to this Court on the ground
that the petitioner has failed to submit the educational certificate
at the time of initial appointment. Any settlement entered into by
the parties has got its statutory force and once the parties have
agreed in the settlement, the same cannot be challenged by the
parties.
(iii) Had the petitioner got the transfer certificate at the time of initial
appointment, there was no occasion for respondents not to enter
the date of birth of the petitioner as per certificate. Since the
petitioner suppressed the same at the time of joining, the request
for changing the date of birth has not been acceded to by the
respondents on the ground of delay and laches.
(iv) In this context, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of
India Vs. Harnam Singh, reported in (1993) 2 SCC 162 held
that "No Court or the Tribunal can come to the aid of those who
sleep over their rights."
(v) The Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of
decisions has held that request for change of date of birth in
service records at the fag end of service career is not sustainable.
In case of State of Tamil Nandu Vs. T.V.Venugopalan, reported
(1994) 6 SCC 302, the Hon'ble Apex Court was clearly of the
opinion that the government servant should not be permitted to
correct the date of birth at the fag end of his service career. The
Court, in very strong terms, observed as under:-
".....The government servant having declared his date of birth as
entered in the service register to be correct, would not be permitted
at the fag end of his service career to raise a dispute as regards the
correctness of the entries in the service register".
(vi) The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Secretary and
Commissioner, Home Department & Ors. Vs. R. Kirubakaran,
reported in 1994 Suppl. (1) SCC 155, has held as under:
"7. An application for correction of the date of birth [by a public
servant cannot be entertained at the fag end of his service]. It
need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of
the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain
reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for
their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are
likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the
correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in
office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers
who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may
lose their promotion forever. ...According to us, this is an
important aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the court or the
tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in
respect of correction of his date of birth. As such, unless a clear
case on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive
in nature, is made out by the respondent, the court or the tribunal
should not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make
such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued, the
court or the tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been
real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction
of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure
prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. ... the
onus is on the applicant to prove the wrong recording of his date
of birth, in his service book."
(vii) Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterating the same view, in
case of State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas, reported in (2011) 9
SCC 664 has held as under:-
"8. It needs to be emphasised 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 6 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. 12. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the delay
of over two decades in applying for the correction of date of
birth is ex facie fatal to the case of the respondent,
notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific rule or order,
framed or made, prescribing the period within which such
application could be filed. It is trite that even in such a situation
such an application should be filed which can be held to be
reasonable. The application filed by the respondent 25 years
after his induction into service, by no standards, can be held to
be reasonable, more so when not a feeble attempt was made to
explain the said delay. There is also no substance in the plea of
the respondent that since Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code
does not prescribe the time-limit within which an application is
to be filed, the appellants were duty-bound to correct the
clerical error in recording of his date of birth in the service
book."
(viii) Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P.
Madhavankutty & Ors., reported in (2000) 2 SCC 455, dealing
with the issue relating to stale claim, has held that, reference of
the said dispute at a belated stage is bad in eyes of law both on
the grounds of delay as well as on non-existence of an industrial
dispute.
(ix) Taking into consideration the aforesaid ratio laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by different High Courts, this
Court in the case of Ajit Singh Vs. M/s Tata Iron & Steel Co.
Ltd., Jamshedpur, decided in W.P.(L) No. 1251 of 2010, held
that "if Government servants sleep over their right and are not
vigilant, the Court cannot come to their rescue / aid and grant
relief only because they were ignorant of the Rules."
7. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules,
regulations, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements,
this writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is, hereby,
dismissed.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
R.Kr.
