Jharkhand High Court
M/S. Bharat Coking Coal Limited ... vs Manoj Kumar Mahato on 18 November, 2024
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 572 of 2022
.........
1. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited (B.C.C.L.), a
Company incorporated under the Companies Act, having
its Head Office at Koyla Bhawan Kusunda, District -
Dhanbad (Jharkhand) through its Managing Director and
also through its Chief Manager (Personnel)/H.O.D. (Legal)
Sri Ved Prakash, aged about 56 years, son of Late Radha
Krishna Prasad, residing near Koyla Bhawan, PO- BCCL
Township, PS- Saraidhela, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
who is also representing other appellants herein.
2. The General Manager, Pootkee Balihari Area of M/s.
Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. + P.S.- Kusunda,
District - Dhanbad.
3. The Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, Pootkee Balihari
Area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. P.S.-
Kusunda, District- Dhanbad.
4. The Area Manager (Personnel), Pootkee Balihari Area,
P.O. + P.S.- Kusunda, M/s Bharat Coking Limited
District - Dhanbad.
5. The Area Manager (Financial), Pootkee Balihari Area,
P.O. + P.S.- Kusunda M/s Bharat - Coking Limited.,
District - Dhanbad.
6. The Manager, Pootkee Balihari Area, P.O. + P.S.
Kusunda, M/s Bharat-Coking coal District - Dhanbad
..... Appellant
Versus
Manoj Kumar Mahato, aged about 51 years, Son of Shri
Lebu Mahato, resident of Village Kenduadih Basti, P.O.-
Bhaga (Jitpur), P.S.- Pootkee, District - Dhanbad
(Jharkhand). .....Respondent
.........
1
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
.........
For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Tejo Mistri, Advocate
C.A.V. ON 24/10/2024 PRONOUNCED ON:18/11/2024
Per Deepak Roshan, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the
appellants against the judgment/order dated 13.09.2022
passed in W.P. (S) No. 2296 of 2021 whereby the Hon'ble
Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ application and
directed that the date of birth of the writ petitioner should
be recorded as 21.12.1972 and further directed to withdraw
the superannuation notice which was issued to the writ
petitioner on 02.08.2022 vide Memo No.308 which
accordingly was quashed.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-
writ petitioner was appointed in Central Coalfields Limited
under the Land-losers Scheme. At the time of his
appointment on 06.01.1990, he was medically examined
and his age was assessed as 19 years (Page 51 of the memo
of appeal).
As per the case of the appellants as pleaded in
para 14 and 15 of the counter affidavit filed before the
Hon'ble Single Judge, the writ petitioner though disclosed
his educational qualification as Matriculate, did not
produce his matriculation certificate and, therefore, his age
had to be assessed medically and was mentioned as 19
years as on 06.01.1990 and accordingly his date of birth
was assessed at 05.01.1971. The writ petitioner never
objected to the same. As per the appellants, the writ
petitioner deliberately did not produce the matriculation
certificate, because, if the age mentioned in the
matriculation certificate (21.12.1972) had been disclosed,
he would not have been granted appointment as on the
date of appointment, he was apparently aged less than 18
years and, therefore, he chose not to produce his
matriculation certificate and got his age assessed through a
Medical Board as 19 years as on 06.01.1990 at the time of
his appointment.
It further appears that in the NEIS (Non-
Executive Information System), the date of birth of the writ
petitioner was entered as 21.12.1962 and for the first time,
on 24.03.2018, the writ petitioner while objecting the entry
of date of birth in the NEIS as 21.12.1962 claimed for the
same to be rectified as 21.12.1972, to which the appellants
did not agree.
It is a settled principle of law that date of birth
which stood recorded at the time of appointment is binding
both on the employer as well as the employee. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal
Limited and others Vs. Shyam Kishore Singh, reported
in (2020) 3 SCC 411 has held as under:-
"9. This Court has consistently held that the request for
change of the date of birth in the service records at the fag
end of service is not sustainable. The learned Additional
Solicitor General has in that regard relied on the decision in
the case of State of Maharashtra and Anr. vs.
Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble & Ors. (2010) 14 SCC
423 wherein a series of the earlier decisions of this Court
were taken note and was held as hereunder:
"16. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed
reliance on the judgment of this Court in U.P. Madhyamik
Shiksha Parishad v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri [(2005) 11 SCC
considered a number of judgments of this Court and
observed that the grievance as to the date of birth in the
service record should not be permitted at the fag end of the
service career.
17. In another judgment in State of Uttaranchal v.
Pitamber Dutt Semwal [(2005) 11 SCC 477 : 2006 SCC
(L&S) 106] relief was denied to the government employee
on the ground that he sought correction in the service
record after nearly 30 years of service. While setting aside
the judgment of the High Court, this Court observed that
the High Court ought not to have interfered with the
decision after almost three decades.
19. These decisions lead to a different dimension of the
case that correction at the fag end would be at the cost of a
large number of employees, therefore, any correction at the
fag end must be discouraged by the court. The relevant
portion of the judgment in Home Deptt.v. R. Kirubakaran
[1994 Supp (1) SCC 155 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 449 : (1994) 26
ATC 828] reads as under: (SCC pp. 15859, para 7)
"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."
4. This Court in fact has also held that even if there is
good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is
erroneous, the correction cannot be claimed as a matter of
right. In that regard, in State of M.P. vs. Premlal Shrivas,
(2011) 9 SCC 664 it is held as hereunder;
"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 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 (see Union of India v. Harnam Singh [(1993) 2 SCC
162 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 375 : (1993) 24 ATC 92] ).
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."
5. The learned Additional Solicitor General has also
relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of
Factory Manager Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. vs. Laxman in
SLP (C) Nos. 25922593/ 2018 dated 25.04.2019 wherein
the belated claim was not entertained. Further reliance is
also placed on the decision of this Court in the case of M/s
Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. vs. Ram Samugh Yadav
& Ors. in C.A.No.7724 of 2011 dated 27.05.2019 wherein
this Court has held as hereunder:
"Nothing is on record that in the year 1987 when the
opportunity was given to Respondent No.1, to raise any
issue/dispute regarding the service record more
particularly his date of birth in the service record, no such
issue/dispute was raised. Only one year prior to his
superannuation, Respondent No.1 raised the dispute
which can be said to be belated dispute and therefore, the
learned Single Judge as well as the employer was justified
in refusing to accept such an issue.
The Division Bench of the High Court has, therefore,
committed a grave error in directing the appellant to correct
the date of birth of Respondent No.1 in the service record
after number of years and that too when the issue was
raised only one year prior to his superannuation and as
observed hereinabove no dispute was raised earlier."
6. In view of the principles settled by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the age of the writ petitioner as was
assessed at the time of his joining became binding upon
both the writ petitioner as well as the appellants-employer
and in this view of the fact, the Hon'ble Single Judge was
not correct in directing the appellants to rectify the date of
birth of the writ petitioner as 21.12.1972 which ought to
have been 21.12.1962 and, thus, the order dated
13.09.2022 is set aside. The LPA is allowed accordingly.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/
AFR
