Tripura High Court
Sadhan Paul vs The State Of Tripura on 17 February, 2025
Page 1 of 10
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.754 of 2023
1. Sadhan Paul,
S/o-Nibaran Chandra Paul
R/o- Roy Colony, Amtali,
P.S. & P.O.-Amtali, Pin - 799130
...............Petitioner(s).
Versus
1. The State of Tripura,
(to be represented by) The Secretary, Department of Industries &
Commerce, Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Complex,
Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin - 799010.
2. The Director of Industries & Commerce,
Directorate of Industries & Commerce, Khejurbagan,
Agartala, West Tripura, Pin - 799010.
3. Tripura Jute Mills Limited (A Govt. of Tripura undertaking)
(To be represented by) The Managing Director,
Tripura Jute Mills Limited, Hapania, Arundhuti Nagar,
PO- ONGC, Agartala, Tripura Pin - 799014
4. The Managing Director,
Tripura Jute Mills Limited, Hapania, Arundhuti Nagar,
PO - ONGC, Agartala, Tripura, Pin - 799014.
............Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Senior Advocate.
: Mr. D. Paul, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Chakraborti, Adv. General.
: Mr. K. De, Addl. G.A.
: Mr. P. Gautam, Adv.
Date of Hearing and
delivery of Judgment & Order : 17th February, 2025
Whether fit for reporting : Yes
_B_E_ F_O_R_E_
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner and also heard Mr. K. De, learned
Addl. G.A. appearing for the State-respondent nos.1 & 2 as well as
Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
nos.3 & 4.
[2] The case of the petitioner in brief is that he was
engaged as worker in Tripura Jute Mills Limited on 04.01.1985 and
at the time of joining in the service, he filled up his personal
datasheet by mentioning his date of birth to be 15.01.1962, but he
could not produce any document in support of his date of birth
and, therefore, as per Clause 23 of the Standing Order of Tripura
Jute Mills Limited (Annexure-1 of the Writ Petition) he was referred
to the Standing Medical Board, GBP Hospital, Agartala along with
some other employees of the Jute Mills Limited for age
determination and the Standing Medical Board vide their report
dated 02.03.2002 determined the age of the present petitioner to
be 37 years on that day and thereafter the petitioner also took
loan from the State Bank of India, Amtali Branch and in the
'Employer's Certificate for Applicant/Guarantor' as counter signed
by the DDO of the respondent nos.3 & 4 in respect of said loan
(Annexure-4 of the Writ Petition), his date of birth was also
mentioned to be 02.03.1965 showing his date of retirement to be
31.03.2025 which co-relates with the age as determined by said
Medical Board.
[3] But suddenly he received a letter dated 30.03.2022
from the Managing Director of Tripura Jute Mills Limited
(Annexure-5 of the Writ Petition) as impugned herein mentioning
that on scrutiny of dossier of the petitioner as was authenticated
by the petitioner himself at the time of entry in the service, it was
detected that his date of retirement was 31.01.2022, but, despite
the same, by mistake he continued to work and, therefore, it was
ordered that the petitioner would be deemed to have retired from
the service w.e.f. 31.01.2022. Then the petitioner filed one
representation dated 26.05.2022 (Annexure-6 of the Writ Petition)
to the Managing Director for correction of his date of birth as
02.03.1965, but getting no response in respect of said
representation, he filed WP(C) No.530 of 2022 which was disposed
of by the coordinate bench of this Court on 25.04.2023 with a
direction to the present respondents to consider and dispose of his
said representation dated 26.05.2022 within a period of 01(one)
month. Thereafter the respondent no.4 disposed of said
representation by rejecting the same and result of such disposal
was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 30.05.2023
(Annexure-8 of the Writ Petition). Being aggrieved thereby now
the petitioner has approached this Court again.
[4] Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel submits that as
per the Clause 23 of the Standing Order itself, the opinion of the
Medical Board is binding upon the respondents and, therefore, it
was the duty of the respondent nos.3 & 4 to correct the date of
birth in terms of said opinion of Medical Board and the petitioner
himself also produced one School Certificate (Annexure-3 of the
Writ Petition) later on to the said respondents which reflects the
date of birth of the petitioner as per the admission register of the
school to be 02.03.1965.
[5] Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel further
contends that even in the form for taking loan from the SBI, the
department itself attested his date of birth to be 02.03.1965, but
despite the same, the action of respondent nos.3 & 4 suddenly
changing of their own stand and forcing the petitioner to go on
retirement on a premature date, is highly illegal and arbitrary.
[6] Finally, Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel urges
for reinstatement of the petitioner in the service treating his date
of retirement to be 31.03.2025.
[7] Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel representing the
respondent nos.3 & 4 strongly argues that the personal datasheet
itself was filled up by the petitioner and was signed by him and,
therefore, he cannot deviate from what were mentioned by him in
that personal datasheet and, hence, his date of birth is required to
be treated as 15.01.1962.
[8] Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel also refers to one
Medical Fitness Certificate dated 18.01.1985 of the petitioner
issued by one Medical Officer and submits that as per said
certificate also, the age of the petitioner was 23 years as on
18.01.1985 which corroborates with his date of birth as
15.01.1962. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel also refers to one
Identity Card issued by the Department to the petitioner which
also reflects his date of birth as 15.01.1962. According to Mr.
Gautam, learned counsel, the Standing Order itself is sacrosanct in
its nature and binding upon both the parties and, therefore, the
decision which was taken by the respondent nos.3 & 4 regarding
age of the petitioner was strictly in accordance with such Standing
Order and now the petitioner cannot deviate from the same.
[9] Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel also relies on a decision
of another coordinate bench of this Court rendered in WP(C)
No.199 of 2014 titled as Sri Dahari Ram versus Tripura Jute
Mills Limited and Anr. (decided on 23.03.2016) wherein similar
dispute arose regarding the entry of date of birth of one employee
of said Jute Mills Limited in the service record and there also the
petitioner relied on his one School Certificate and in that
perspective, the Court directed the respondents to dispose of the
representation of the petitioner within 03(three) months and also
to consider the document i.e. the Transfer Certificate as produced
by the petitioner in support of his claim of date of birth.
[ 10 ] Mr. K. De, learned Addl. G.A. submits that the State has
no involvement in the affairs of the parties. However, from the
reply as given by the respondent no.4 against the representation
of the petitioner, it appears that the School Certificate of the
petitioner was not taken in the consideration by the respondent
nos.3 & 4 on the ground that once date of birth of the employee
was recorded in the Service Book/Datasheet of the employee, it
cannot be changed or altered except in case of clerical error.
[ 11 ] I have considered the rival contentions of the parties
and also have meticulously gone through the documents placed by
both the parties. To determine the issue, Clause 23 of the
Standing Order assumes the greater relevance and, therefore,
same is extracted hereunder:
"23. DATE OF BIRTH :
(a) The personnel Department of the Company
will record the age of every employee at the time of his
employment and the entry of age shall be attested by
the employee.
(b) Every employee must declare on his first
appointment or on being required to do so by the
Management, his date of birth according to the
Christian Era/Saka Era and produce confirmatory
documentary evidence, e.g., Matriculation certificate or
Municipal/Police/Birth Certificate, etc. and in the
absence thereof, such evidence as may be accepted by
the Management. If an employee is unable to produce
confirmatory evidence of his age, he shall make a
written declaration regarding his age. Such workman
will be sent to the Company's Medical Officer for
examination and his opinion as to the workman's age
shall be binding on the workman.
(c) The date of birth once recorded in the Service
book/Sheet of the employee as stated above will not be
altered except in the case of clerical error.
(d) If an employs is unable to state his exact
date of birth but can state approximately year or year
and month of birth the 1st July or the 16th of a month
respectively may be treated as the date of birth."
[ 12 ] Thus, as per said Standing Order no.23, the employee
is required to declare on his first appointment or on being required
to do so by the Management, his date of birth and to produce
documentary evidence like Matriculation Certificate or
Municipal/Police Record or Birth Certificate etc. and in absence of
documents, the employee is required to make a written declaration
regarding his age and then such employee is required to be sent to
the Company's Medical Officer for examination and the opinion of
the Medical Officer on age of the concerned employee is binding on
him. It is also stipulated that the date of birth once recorded in the
Service Book/ Datasheet of the employee as stated above will not
be altered except in case of clerical error.
[ 13 ] In the instant case, nothing has been produced from
either side that any written declaration regarding the date of birth
of the petitioner was submitted by him. Rather one personal
datasheet was signed by the petitioner in Bengali, but said
datasheet was filled up in English language by somebody else
wherein his date of birth is mentioned to be '15.01.1962' and even
overwriting is also noticed in the figure '1962'. His personal
qualification is also not recorded in the datasheet and as such
there is nothing in the record to draw any presumption that he is
an educated person. From the Standing Medical Board Examination
Report (Annexure-2 of the Writ Petition) it appears that several
persons were referred to the said Standing Medical Board, GBP
Hospital by the Managing Director of Tripura Jute Mills Limited for
age determination and after physical, dental and radiological
examination the Medical Board opined on 02.03.2002 about the
age of the petitioner to be 37 years as on the said date.
[ 14 ] According to Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel, if
said opinion of the Medical Board is accepted then it correlates
with the date of birth of the petitioner to be 02.03.1965. According
to the respondent nos.3 & 4, in the light of said decision of the
Medical Board the date of birth of the petitioner was not changed
in his datasheet. But it appears that in the employer's certificate
issued in favour of the petitioner at the time of taking loan as was
attested by his DDO, his date of birth was mentioned as
02.03.1965. No explanation is coming forward from the
respondent nos.3 & 4, on what basis said DDO himself attested
such information if they were sticking to the recorded date of birth
of the petitioner as 15.01.1962. Basically, the defence of the
respondent nos.3 & 4 is based on a Medical Report dated
18.01.1985 issued by a Medical Officer (Annexure-9 of the Writ
Petition) wherein the Medical Officer while issuing Medical Fitness
Certificate to the petitioner observed that the age of the petitioner
as per his own statement was 23 years on that date and by his
appearance also he seemed to be 23 years on that day. But no
specific examination was done by said Medical Officer to determine
his age.
[ 15 ] Therefore, it is found that the respondent nos.3 & 4
themselves did not comply with the provision of Clause 23(b) of
the said Standing Order in it's true sense. The petitioner however
submitted one School Certificate in support of his claim of his date
of birth to be 02.03.1965 and while disposing his representation,
the respondent no.4 ignored the same on the ground that once the
date of birth is recorded in the Service Book/Sheet as per Clause
23(c) (TJM Standing Order), same could not be changed based on
such School Certificate. If the stand of respondent nos.3 & 4 being
so, there is no explanation as to why in the year 2002 the
petitioner was sent for examination by a Medical Board by the
Managing Director for his age determination though he entered in
service in the year 1985 and once the Medical Board determined
his age, why same was not followed by the respondent nos.3 & 4.
Clause 23 of the said Standing Order itself envisages that when
any declaration is submitted by the employee concerned, he will
be sent to the Company's Medical Officer for his examination for
determination of his age, but nothing is produced from the side of
the respondent nos.3 & 4 that at the time of entry into the service
the petitioner was examined by any Medical Officer particularly
with reference to his age determination except said report of the
Medical Board dated 02.03.2002. The Medical Certificate as
submitted by the respondent nos.3 & 4 is not a document of
medical examination of the petitioner with reference to his age
determination, rather a fitness certificate. Sub-Clause (C) of
Clause 23 of the Standing Order also envisages that date of birth
once recorded in the Service Book of the employee as stated
above will not be altered except in the case of clerical error, but
here in this case, as it appears, no such entry was made regarding
the age of the petitioner at the time of his entry into service
following the provision of said Clause 23(b) of the Standing Order.
Therefore, such reasoning of the respondent nos.3 & 4 are not
convincing and acceptable
Considering thus, the writ petition is allowed.
The respondent nos.3 & 4 are directed to make an enquiry
about the genuineness of the School Certificate submitted by the
petitioner and in case his said document is found to be genuine,
then his date of birth will be treated as 02.03.1965 and
consequently the respondent nos.3 & 4 will pay the petitioner all
the service benefits including his reinstatement into service, if
meanwhile his date of retirement based on his claimed age is not
expired, and will make payment of all the dues as arrears. The
entire exercise should be done by the respondent nos.3 & 4 within
03(three) months from receipt of copy of this order.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
JUDGE
SATABDI DUTTA Date: 2025.02.20 15:59:01
Riki
