Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition where the appellant was questioning the validity of an order of the employer (Hindustan Copper Limited the first respondent in this appeal) treating his date of birth as 21st September 1945. The appellant’s stand is that his date of birth is 21st September 1949. The appellant had invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur, but was unsuccessful before a Single Judge and the Division Bench in sustaining his case.
Brief Facts:
The VRS was operational in the appellant’s case with effect from 3rd October 2002. Admitted position is that 21st September 1949 was recorded as his date of birth in his service book. He had joined the organisation in the year 1971 and the Form “B” reflects his date of birth as 21st September 1945. The appellant claims that at the time of his voluntary retirement, he came to learn for the first time that his date of birth was being changed to 21st September 1945. He invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court in the year 2008 as his representations for adhering to 21st September 1949 as his birthdate failed to evoke positive response from the employer. That writ petition was disposed of by a Single Judge. The appellant’s representation was rejected by the competent authority employer by an order passed on 13th October 2008. The appellant’s plea against the rejection order was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by an Order dated 24th November 2008 and his appeal assailing the order of dismissal before a Division Bench of the same High Court also failed. The judgment of the Division Bench was delivered on 8th December 2016.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that at the entry point, he had given his age to be 26 years, and that was the age reflected in the Form “B”. That is a statutory form required to be maintained under The Mines Act, 1952. It was submitted that at that point of time, the medical practitioner during a health checkup had also assessed his age to be about 25 years, which would take his year of birth closer to 1945. In the year 1975, his service book was prepared. In such records, the appellant’s age was entered as 26 years by mistake, repeating his age as it was at the time, he joined the organisation. That is how the inconsistent record of the appellant’s birthdate is sought to be explained by the employer.
SC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides SC observed that this is not a case where a workman is seeking to change his date of birth to his benefit at the end of his career. This is a case where the employer is altering the records at the end of the career of the workman to his detriment on taking unilateral decision that the date of birth specified in the appellant’s service book was erroneous, relying on a date disclosed in a statutory form.
SC opined that the appellant’s complaint over the dispute was belated so as to nonsuit him on this count alone. VRS benefit is an entitlement and assumes the character of property to the employee concerned once his application for VRS is accepted. SC stated that it is the right of a person under Article 300A of the Constitution of India to have the VRS benefit to be given on accurate assessment thereof, the employer here being a public sector unit. If at the time of quantifying the VRS benefit after accepting an employee’s application for voluntary retirement, the employer takes any step that would reduce such benefit in monetary terms, such step shall have to be taken under the authority of law.
SC stated that there are several authorities in which this Court has deprecated the practice on the part of the employees at the fag end of their career to dispute the records pertaining to their dates of birth that would have the effect of extension of the length of their service. The very reasoning on which an employee is not permitted to raise age correction plea at the fag end of his service to extend his tenure should also apply to the employer as well.
SC stated that the action of the employer lacking in authority of law. It fails for not adhering to the principles of natural justice. The decision not to follow the service book recordal was taken without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The very reasoning on which an employee is not permitted to raise age correction plea at the fag end of his service to extend his tenure should also apply to the employer as well.
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “the materials relied upon by the appellant were ignored altogether. We thus set aside the judgment of the Division Bench. The rejection order dated 13th October 2008 of the competent authority shall stand quashed. The respondent no.1 proceeded in the case of the appellant in an erroneous manner in treating the appellant’s date of birth to be 21st September 1945. We accordingly direct the respondents to extend the benefits of VRS to the appellant treating his date of birth as 21st September 1949.”
Case Title: Shankar Lal v. Hindustan Copper Ltd. & Ors.
Bench: J. and Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and J. Aniruddha Bose
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO.2858 OF 2022
Decided on: 20th April 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
