Jharkhand High Court
Lachhu Manjhi vs M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Having Its ... on 28 January, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP(S) No.4980 of 2022
-----
Lachhu Manjhi, S/o Shukla Manjhi, R/o Duhatand, Manjhi Tola, P.O. &
P.S.-Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad, presently working as B/G Mazdoor,
New Akashkinaree Colliery of M/s B.C.C.L., P.O. & P.S.-Katrashgarh,
District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
... Petitioner.
Versus
1. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. having its office at Koyala Bhawan,
Koyala Nagar, P.O. & P.S.-Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad, through its
Managing Director.
2. The Director Personnel (Head Quarter), M/s Bharat Coking Coal
Ltd. office at Koyala Bhawan, Koyala Nagar, P.O. & P.S.-
Saraidhela, District-Dhanbad.
3. The General Manager (P & IR), Headquarters, M/s Bharat Coking
Coal Ltd. office at Koyala Bhawan, Koyala Nagar, P.O. & P.S.-
Saraidhela, District-Dhanbad.
4. The Chief General Manager, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. New
Akashkinaree Colliery, Area No.III, P.O. & P.S.-Katrashgarh,
District-Dhanbad.
5. The Project Officer, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., New
Akashkinaree Colliery, Area No.III, P.O. & P.S.-Katrashgarh,
District-Dhanbad.
... Respondents.
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Malityar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
.........
06 /28.01.2025: The petitioner is challenging Annexure-6 to the writ
petition. The Annexure-6 is the information given to the
petitioner by his employer that he is due to superannuate with
effect from 31.10.2022 as his date of birth is recorded in the
service record as 08.10.1962.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he cannot
be superannuated on 31.10.2022 as his date of birth has been
wrongly mentioned as 08.10.1962 in the service records in place
of 19.04.1967.
3. There is a dispute regarding recording of date of birth of
the employee. Annexure-1 to the writ application is the service
excerpts which was provided to the petitioner on 10.07.1987. In
the service excerpts in the column of date of birth of the
petitioner it was mentioned as 23 years as on 08.10.1985 and his
date of appointment is January, 1986, the said document bears
the signature of this petitioner. Petitioner did not object such
recording.
4. From this document, it is clear that in 1987 itself at least
on 10.07.1987, the petitioner knew that his date of birth has
been recorded as 23 years as on 08.10.1985 which will be
sometime in the year 1962.
5. The petitioner heavily relying upon the Pan Card and
Aadhar Card in support of his contention that his date of birth
is 19.04.1967. Pan Card and Aadhar Card is not a document in
proof of the date of birth. In this case the petitioner entered in
service and at the time of entering in service his date of birth
was mentioned as 1962 which the petitioner did not challenge.
The petitioner filed this writ application only in the year 2022,
after receiving the superannuation notice though he had
knowledge about the recording in service record at least from
1987.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eastern
Coalfields Limited versus Ram Samugh Yadav and Others
reported in (2020) 3 SCC 421 held that the issue of date of birth
raised one year prior to superannuation is not justified when in
the year 1987 opportunity was granted to the employees to
raise the dispute. The issue is similar here. In the year 1987 the
petitioner was given the service excerpts which he has signed
but did not raise any dispute in respect of date of birth which
was recorded. Be noted that in this case the petitioner is an
employee of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. which is a subsidiary of
Coal India Ltd. and the case referred to above is of Eastern
Coalfields Ltd. which is also a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd.,
and service regulations are same.
7. Further in case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited versus
Shyam Kishore Singh reported in (2020) 3 SCC 411 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that in the fag end of the service, the date
of birth cannot be corrected.
8. Considering these two judgments and the facts of this
case, I am not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners,
accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
Arpit/
