Jharkhand High Court
Dilip Kumar Das vs M/S. Bharat Coking Coal Limited Through ... on 25 April, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:12321-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A No. 200 of 2024
--------
Dilip Kumar Das, aged about 56 years, son of Bhuneshwar Das,
resident of A.C-42, Jayrampur, near CISF Camp, Jayrampur Colliery,
Suranga, P.O. and P.S. Tisra, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director, having its office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O. Koyla
Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad.
2. The Director Personnel M/s. B.C.C.L., having its office at Koyla
Bhawan, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad.
3. The General Manager, (P & IR) M/s. B.C.C.L. having its office at
Koyla Bhawan, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad.
4. The General Manager, Bastacolla Area, M/s. B.C.C.L., P.O. and P.S.
Dhansar, District Dhanbad.
5. The General Manager, Lodna Area, M/s. B.C.C.L., P.O. and P.S.
Lodna, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand. ... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Appellant : Mr. Durga C. Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent-BCCL : M/s. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Manish
Kumar, Pratyush, Advocates
--------
JUDGMENT
CAV On 03/04/2025 Pronounced On 25/ 04 /2025
Per Deepak Roshan, J.
The instant Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the
appellant assailing the order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the Writ
Court in W.P.(S) No. 4737 of 2021; whereby the writ petition filed by
the appellant praying for quashing the order dated 26.11.2020 passed
by the respondent-BCCL rejecting the claim of the appellant for
change of date of birth from 20.05.1965 to 12.01.1969 as per the
matriculation certificate, has been dismissed.
2025:JHHC:12321-DB
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings are that the
appellant was appointed on 06.05.1987 as Miner/Loader at Keshalpur
Colliery, Katras area of BCCL. The claim of the appellant is that at the
time of joining he had submitted the details before the respondent-
authority wherein he mentioned the date of birth as 12.01.1969 based
on the admit card of the matriculation examination. After his joining,
he received the matriculation certificate on 25.08.1987. However, in
the year 2013, when BCCL published vacancy for the post of
Overseer through Limited Examination and the appellant was
recommended by the Departmental Selection Committee for the post
of Overseer, his entire service book was prepared afresh and then the
appellant came to know that his date of birth was wrongly mentioned
in service excerpts and thereafter he filed a representation on
10.03.2014 annexing his matriculation certificate, however, when
nothing was done for a long period of about seven years the appellant
preferred the writ application which stood dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per
Implementation Instruction No. 76, the matriculation certificate has to
be taken into consideration by the Management for the purpose of
recording of date of birth. As a matter of fact, it is incumbent upon the
respondent-Coal Company to correct the date of birth as per the
matriculation certificate.
He further submits that the writ Court has failed to appreciate
that when the matriculation certificate was on the record of the
Management, the writ Court should not have dismissed the writ
application and should have directed the Management to correct the
date of birth. He further relied upon the order passed by this Court in
the case of "Kamta Pandey v. BCCL & Ors."1 and submits that in the
said case the Full Bench of this Court has held that it could not be said
that the claim has been made only at the fag end of service when
some of the records of the Company which had been issued
2007 (3) JCR 681 (Jhr)
2025:JHHC:12321-DB
immediately after appointment, would indicate that the date of birth
has been mentioned as 01.07.1951 as reflected in the matriculation
certificate.
Relying upon the aforesaid judgment passed by the Full Bench
of this Court he submits that the order passed by the writ Court should
be set aside and the order dated 26.11.2020 whereby the respondent-
BCCL has rejected the claim of the appellant for change of date of
birth from 20.05.1965 to 12.01.1969 be quashed and set-aside and
the management be further directed to correct the date of birth of the
appellant as recorded in matriculation certificate.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-coal company
opposes the prayer of the appellant and submits that the law has been
well settled that no correction in date of birth can be made at the fag
end of service. Further, after appointment of the appellant, Form-B
register was prepared indicating his date of birth as 20.05.1965 and
the same has been acknowledged to be correct by the appellant by
putting his signature thereon. Even the entire service excerpts
including the Identity Card of the appellant carried the date of birth as
20.05.1965 and the appellant had dully accepted it and never
approached the authorities after joining his service and it is only in the
year 2013 after rendering 26 years of service, he has raised this point.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the documents available on record and the impugned order it
appears that after the appointment of the appellant, Form-B register,
which is statutory register, was prepared in the name of the appellant
mentioning his date of birth as 20.05.1965 and the appellant had dully
acknowledged by signing the same.
At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that the appellant
had not put his thumb impression so as to say that he was illiterate
and was unaware with regard to the said details of the appellant.
Moreover, even the Identity Card which was prepared by the Coal
Company indicated the date of birth of the appellant as 20.05.1965
2025:JHHC:12321-DB
which further corroborates that he was well aware with the fact that his
date of birth is 20.05.1965 which has been mentioned in the entire
records of the Coal Company.
6. On the basis of aforesaid admitted facts, the judgment relied
upon by the appellant is not applicable in the facts of this case,
inasmuch as, in the said relied case, there were few documents on
record of the Company which was prepared immediately after
appointment of that employee and his date of birth was mentioned as
01.07.1951 as reflected in the matriculation certificate.
These are missing in the instant case, inasmuch as, for the first
time the appellant had given his matriculation certificate in the year
2013 when the vacancy for the post of Overseer was published
through Limited Examination and being eligible in all respect, the
appellant applied for the said post and he was directed to appear
before the Interview Board on 19.08.2013 and he was finally
recommended by the Departmental Selection Committee for the post
of Overseer.
7. The law is now no more res integra that any correction in the
date of birth should not be made at the fag end of service. No reason
has been demonstrated by the appellant as to why he has not
produced the matriculation certificate just after receiving the same. As
stated hereinabove, in the "Identity Card" his date of birth was
mentioned as 20.05.1965 and not 12.01.1969 as claimed by the
appellant.
Moreover, had the appellant got the matriculation certificate at
the time of initial appointment or had he submitted the same just after
appointment; there was no reason as to why the respondent would not
correct his date of birth. The appellant has further not demonstrated
why he suppressed the matriculation certificate for long 26 years.
8. Per se, we are of the opinion that the Writ Court has not
committed any error in rejecting the claim of the appellant for
correction of his date of birth. Accordingly, the instant intra Court
2025:JHHC:12321-DB
appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Pending I.As., if any, also stand disposed of.
(M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amit
N.A.F. R
