Jharkhand High Court
Dhaneshwar Ramani vs Eastern Coalfield Limited Through The ... on 11 June, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:15169
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 5732 of 2019
---------
Dhaneshwar Ramani, about 51 years, Son of Shri Mangru
Ramani, Resident of Village Dahua, near School, P.O.
Kusumghati, P.S Boarijor, District- Godda, State Jharkhand, PIN
Code-814147. ....Petitioner
Versus
1. Eastern Coalfield Limited through the General Manager
(I/C), Rajmahal Group of Mines Area, Office Dhankundda,
P.O. Bara Semra and P.S. Rajmahal, District Godda,
Jharkhand.
2. The Manager, Eastern Coalfield Rajmahal Area, P.O. and
P.S. Rajmahal, District Godda, Jharkhand. ....Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate
---------
C.A.V. ON: 05.05.2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 11/06/2025
1. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by
the petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs:-
(i) For directing the concerned respondents to make
necessary correction in the service record of the
petitioner with respect to his date of birth as wrong date
of birth has been inserted in the service records as
12.11.1963 though the correct date of birth of the
petitioner is 14.01.1968.
(ii) For quashing the notice of superannuation issued by the
respondent authorities on 25.11.2022 as contained in
Annexure-9 whereby it was informed that the petitioner
would superannuate on 30.11.2023 by treating the date
of birth of the Petitioner as 12.11.1963.
(iii) Further direction be given to the concerned respondents
to correct the date of birth of the Petitioner in the service
records as 14.01.1968 instead of 12.11.1963 and allow
the petitioner to work till he attains the age of
superannuation by construing his date of birth as
14.01.1968.
2025:JHHC:15169
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was
appointed as Shovel Operator under the respondent coal
company. On 21.02.1998, two letters of provisional
appointment has been issued to the petitioner and thereafter,
the petitioner was appointed under the land loser scheme.
4. The case of the Petitioner is that in the provisional
appointment letters, both dated 21.02.1998 having same letter
number, issued to the Petitioner indicated the date of birth of
the Petitioner as 14.01.1968 (Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ
petition). Even the Identity Card which was issued reflects the
same date of birth of the Petitioner which was mentioned in the
provisional appointment letters i.e., 14.01.1968.
It is further the case of petitioner that he is having date of
birth as 14.01.1968 which is also evident from matriculation
certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board but
the same was issued after his appointment and at the time of
appointment the Petitioner had submitted school leaving
certificate containing the same date of birth i.e., 14.01.1968.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that just after the
appointment, he was asked to submit his documents for
verification. However, when the same was returned, there was
an alteration in the date of birth i.e., instead of 14.01.1968, it
was mentioned as 12.11.1963, for which, the Petitioner
immediately represented the competent authority. Annexure-7
series has been annexed by the Petitioner showing his bona fide
2025:JHHC:15169
that the moment he came to know about the alteration in the
official documents, he approached the concerned respondents
to do the needful.
6. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the
alteration done by the Respondent Authorities was behind the
back of the Petitioner and he was having no knowledge about
the said alteration. Further, even in the Form-B Register, the
date of birth of the Petitioner is same what has been mentioned
in the original provisional appointment letters.
It has been further submitted that it is not a case that the
Petitioner is raising a dispute with respect to incorrect date of
birth shown in his service record at the fag end of service;
rather, right from the beginning, the Petitioner has been
representing before the respondent authorities; however,
nothing was done and a letter dated 25.11.2022 (Annexure-9)
was issued to the Petitioner whereby it was informed that he
would superannuate on 30.11.2023 by treating the date of birth
of the Petitioner as 12.11.1963.
7. Ld. Sr. Counsel further draws attention of this Court
towards Annexure-G to the counter affidavit filed by the
Respondents which is the "Medical Identity Card" and
submitted that from bare perusal of same it would transpire
that although the date of birth of the Petitioner has been altered
and recorded as 12.11.1963 in the concerned column; however,
the date of retirement remained intact as 14.01.2028 which
2025:JHHC:15169
clearly goes to show that with the mala fide intention for the
reasons best known to the respondents, this mischief has been
committed.
8. Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the
"Matriculation Certificate" which has been relied upon by the
Petitioner was subsequent to the date of appointment. At the
time of appointment, since the Petitioner was not a matriculate,
he submitted his School Leaving Certificate. He further
submitted that the law is well settled that at the fag end of
service, law does not permit to raise grievance regarding
correction in the date of birth. Moreover, in the altered
certificate which was corrected by the management, was duly
acknowledged by the Petitioner by putting his signature. As
such, the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
He further relied upon the judgement passed in the case of
BCCL v. Shyam Kishore Singh reported in (2020) 3 SCC 411
wherein it has been held that prayer for change in date of birth
in service register cannot be entertained at the fag end of
service after accepting same to be correct, during entire service
period (Refer para 7 to 14).
9. Relying upon the settled proposition of law that no
correction in the date of birth can be raised at the fag end of
service, much less, after the superannuation of the concerned
employee; he further submitted that it has been held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that correction in
2025:JHHC:15169
the date of birth at the fag end of service would be at the cost of
large number of employees, therefore, any correction at the fag
end of the service must be discouraged by the Court and in the
instant case, admittedly, the Petitioner has committed the same
mistake; as such, no relief can be granted to the Petitioner.
10. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after
going through the documents annexed with the respective
affidavits and the averments made therein, it appears that the
grievance of the petitioner cropped up when he was asked to
submit the original documents for verification and when the
same was returned to him there was an alteration/cutting in
few certificates including Medical Identity Card.
11. However, at this stage itself, it is pertinent to mention here
that from bare perusal of the Medical Identity Card, which has
been annexed as Annexure-G, it would transpire that in the
column of age, there is an alteration/correction and 14.01.1968
has been altered to 12.11.1963. However, at the column of date
of retirement; there was no correction which supports the
argument of the Petitioner that with mala fide intention, the
correction has been made. Further, there is no initial at the
corrected column either of the Competent authority or of the
Petitioner. Even in the Service register, there is a cutting at the
column of date of birth by putting 12.11.1963 instead of
14.01.1968. However, though there is initial of some officer;
however, there is no corresponding acknowledgement of the
2025:JHHC:15169
petitioner himself. This document further fortifies the argument
of the Petitioner that these changes have been made behind his
back.
12. At this stage, it is also relevant to mention that a
memorandum of settlement under Section 12(3) of Industrial
Disputes Act was arrived at between the Management of
Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen on 25.05.2007
wherein it has been stipulated at Point No.8 that the
management agrees to dispose of the age-related disputes on
priority basis and prior to their superannuation.
However, even in terms of memorandum of settlement, the
concerned management has not acted upon the representation
which has been annexed as Annexure-7 series because
admittedly, in all those representations there are initials and
stamp of the concerned authority of the respondent company.
13. Interestingly, in these peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case, this Court vide its order dated 11.12.2023, has passed
an order by observing that the date of birth mentioned in
statutory Form-B is the only document which has to be
considered. However, neither of the parties have brought the
same on record and thereafter, this Court had directed the
Respondents to bring on record statutory Form-B showing date
of birth mentioned therein. For brevity, order dated 11.12.2023
is extracted hereinbelow: -
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2025:JHHC:15169
Learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues
that the date of birth based on school leaving certificate was entered in the
service excerpts as 14.01.1968 but the respondents have interpolated the
same and as such appropriate orders may be passed to consider case of the
petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel submits that though petitioner is
claiming date of birth to be treated on the basis of school leaving certificate
but the said certificate was never submitted before the authorities at the
time of joining which is apparent from the attestation form. It was never
mentioned as to whether petitioner was matriculate or not.
The date of birth mentioned in statutory Form-B is the only
document which has to be considered. However, neither of the parties have
brought the same on record.
Respondents are directed to bring on record statutory Form-B
showing date of birth mentioned therein.
As prayed, put up this case on 17.01.2024."
14. Pursuant thereto; the Respondents have filed a
supplementary counter affidavit on 12.01.2024 annexing the
Form-B register. Surprisingly, in Form-B register, which is a
statutory register of the employees, the age of the Petitioner has
been mentioned as 14.01.1968 what was originally mentioned
in the two provisional appointment letters and the Identity
Card. This particular document falsifies and destroys the entire
argument of the respondent coal company because admittedly,
Form-B is the statutory Form which is maintained by the
company.
15. It is also necessary to indicate that the law is well-settled
that any action of the Government/Company which will be
prejudicial to its employees must be done after giving proper
notice to him. In the instant case, on the one hand, the entire
correction/alteration, whatsoever, has been made behind the
back of the Petitioner and on the other hand, the Form-B
register which is statutory one, clearly speaks the truth.
16. The stand of the Respondents that the dispute regarding
2025:JHHC:15169
date of birth cannot be raised at the fag end of service, much
less, after the superannuation is correct and there is no quarrel
with regard to the aforesaid proposition but in the case at hand;
admittedly, several representations have been made by the
Petitioner within couple of years of his appointment; however,
the Respondents were sitting tight over the matter and all of a
sudden in the year 2022, vide letter dated 25.11.2022, informed
the Petitioner that he is going to retire on 30.11.2023.
17. Before parting it is necessary to mention that since there
was a claim and counter claim with regard to the cutting
mentioned in the official service record, this Court vide order
dated 02.07.2024, directed to the Respondents to bring all the
original records upon which they were relying. Pursuant
thereto, the original records were produced before this Court in
sealed cover and after verification of the same, the same was
returned which is reflected in the order dated 05.05.2025. In
those original documents, it was crystal clear that there was
cutting in few documents; however, there was no initial in one
of the documents as stated hereinabove and in none of the
documents there were initials of the Petitioner acknowledging
the correction. Further, in the Form-B it was clearly indicated
that the date of birth of the petitioner is 14.01.1968.
18. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, the impugned
letter dated 25.11.2022 (Annexure-9), whereby it was informed
that Petitioner would superannuate on 30.11.2023 by treating
2025:JHHC:15169
his date of birth as 12.11.1963, is quashed and set aside and
the Respondent Company is directed to make necessary
correction in the service record of the Petitioner with respect to
his date of birth, inasmuch as, this Court holds that the same
has been wrongly inserted in the service records as 12.11.1963
instead of correct date of birth of the Petitioner as 14.01.1968.
19. However, even after calculating the date of birth as
14.01.1968; the Petitioner would have retired till date; as such,
there can be no direction to the Respondents to reinstate him in
service. As such, interest of justice would be sufficed by
directing the Respondents to pay a compensation to this
Petitioner. Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to pay a
compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lakh) only to the
Petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of
receipt/production of copy of this order.
20. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed.
Pending IAs, if any, also stands closed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Vikas/-
A . F . R..
