Jharkhand High Court
Chandmani Manjhiyain vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited on 8 July, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:18177-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 381 of 2024
---
Chandmani Manjhiyain, wife of Birbal Manjhi, resident of
Bhowra, Parsiabad, P.O.- Bhowra, P.S.- Jorapokhar, District-
Dhanbad ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad through its Chairman-
cum-Managing Director
2. The Director (Personnel), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad
3. The Chief General Manager, Washery Division, BCCL, P.O. & P.S.-
Sudamdih, District- Dhanbad
4. The General Manager, EWZ, BCCL, P.O. & P.S.- Sudamdih,
District- Dhanbad
5. The Project Officer, Sudamdih Coal Washery, BCCL, P.O. & P.S.-
Sudamdih, District- Dhanbad
.... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Aarti Kumari, Advocate
Md. Belal Ashraf Khan, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
---
Reserved on 02.07.2025 Pronounced on 08.07.2025
Per : Rajesh Shankar, J. :
The present appeal is directed against the order/judgment
dated 27.02.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3815
of 2011 whereby the said writ petition filed by the original petitioner
namely Birbal Manjhi (husband of the appellant) for quashing of the
notice of retirement as contained in letter dated 07.02.2005 issued by
the respondent no. 5 whereby he was informed that he would retire
w.e.f. 30.06.2005, has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the original
petitioner was appointed on 01.02.1971 as "General Mazdoor", Shaft
Mine, Sudamdih by the Management of Bharat Coking Coal Limited
(BCCL) and at the time of initial joining, his date of birth was
2025:JHHC:18177-DB
mentioned as 01.07.1949 in different records, including Form-B
register maintained by the BCCL.
3. It is further submitted that the original petitioner received the
notice of retirement dated 07.02.2005 whereby he was informed that
he would retire with effect from 30.6.2005. The original petitioner
preferred a Title Suit No. 111 of 2008 but the same was dismissed
on the ground of limitation.
4. It is also submitted that the original petitioner filed writ petition
being W.P.(S) No. 3815 of 2011 for quashing of the said notice of
retirement dated 07.02.2005 whereby he was informed that he
would retire w.e.f 30.06.2005, however the said writ petition was
dismissed vide impugned order dated 27.02.2024.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the
respondents have framed Implementation Instruction No. 76 which
contains procedure of determination of age of an employee and the
same provides that the date of birth recorded in the Form-B register,
CNIPF records and identity card will be treated as final. In all the
records of the respondent company including the statutory Form-B
register, the date of birth of the original petitioner was mentioned as
01.07.1949 on the basis of which he was to retire after attaining the
age of 60 years only on 30.06.2009, hence there was no occasion
for him to raise dispute regarding his date of birth.
6. It is lastly submitted that the respondent company had
unilaterally made correction in the date of birth of the original
petitioner as 01.07.1945.
7. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent-BCCL
submits that the dispute regarding date of birth cannot be raised at
2025:JHHC:18177-DB
the fag end of service.
8. It is further submitted that the original petitioner did not
produce any legal document in support of his date of birth and as
such, he was sent for medical assessment. Thereafter, his date of
birth was mentioned as 01.07.1945 in the service excerpts.
9. It is also submitted that the writ petition was filed by the
original petitioner after an inordinate delay which was rightly
dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
materials available on record.
11. The claim of the appellant is that in the service excerpts of the
original petitioner including Form-B, his date of birth was mentioned
as 01.07.1949 and as such he was to retire on 30.06.2009, however
the respondent company made him to retire from service w.e.f.
30.06.2005 by unilaterally correcting his date of birth as 01.07.1945.
12. It is an admitted fact that vide letter no. 2598 dated
07.02.2005, the original petitioner was informed that he would retire
on 30.06.2005. The original petitioner did not challenge the said
letter immediately after receiving it, rather he filed writ petition after
about 6 years from the date of his retirement seeking quashing of
the said letter.
13. On bare perusal of the record of the case, it appears that one
title suit being Title Suit No. 111 of 2008 was also filed by the
original petitioner raising dispute regarding his date of birth after
three years from the date of issuance of notice of retirement and the
said title suit was also dismissed on the ground of limitation.
14. In the case of Shankara Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vs.
2025:JHHC:18177-DB
M. Prabhakar reported in (2011) 5 SCC 607, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that delay and laches are the factors that
require to be borne in mind by the High Courts when they exercise
their discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. In an appropriate case, the High Court may refuse to invoke
its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on
the part of the applicant to assert his rights taken in conjunction
with the lapse of time and other circumstances. Filing of
representations would not be adequate explanation to take care of
the delay.
15. In the case of State of M.P. & Others Vs. Nandlal Jaiswal
& Others reported in (1986) 4 SCC 566, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that the power of the High Court to issue an
appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
discretionary and the High Court in the exercise of its discretion does
not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent
and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the
petitioner in filing a writ petition and such delay is not satisfactorily
explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief
in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
16. It is well settled that delay and laches are the key factors to be
borne in mind by the High Courts in order to decline the prayer while
exercising discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India if there is negligence or omission on the part of the
applicant to assert his rights.
17. In the case in hand, even if it is assumed that the original
petitioner came to know about his wrong date of birth mentioned in
2025:JHHC:18177-DB
the record only after receiving the letter dated 07.02.2005, the writ
petition was filed after more than 6 years from the date of issuance
of the said letter due to his own negligence and laches.
18. It is a well settled principle of law that inordinate delay in filing
a writ petition cannot be ignored on the sympathetic ground or on
the ground that it would harshly affect the aggrieved party. We are
of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the
writ petition which was filed by the original petitioner after an
inordinate delay.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any infirmity
in the order/judgment dated 27.02.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3815
of 2011.
20. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
21. The pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed
accordingly.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
N.A.F.R.
Ritesh/
