SHANKAR LAL Vs. HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is before us primarily questioning the validity of an order of the employer (Hindustan Copper Limited ­ the first respondent in this appeal) treating his date of birth as 21/9/1945. This date has relevance for computation of his benefits accruing from a Voluntary Retirement Scheme ("VRS"), for which he applied and was granted. The appellant's stand is that his date of birth is 21/9/1949. The appellant had invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur ("the High Court"), but was unsuccessful before a Single Judge and the Division Bench in sustaining his case. If the latter date, i.e. 21/9/1949 was accepted by the employer to be his date of birth, his financial benefits from the said scheme would have been higher, as he would have had longer service tenure left. It appears that the tenure of service left was the basis on which the VRS benefit was to be computed. We would like to point out here that in the pleadings and copies of various other documents forming part of the paperbook, there are overlapping dates claimed by the appellant to be his actual date of birth. These are 20/9/1949 and 21/9/1949. This variation, however, is insignificant so far as adjudication of this appeal is concerned. In this judgment, we shall ignore this variation and proceed on the basis that 21/9/1949 is the date claimed by the appellant to be his birthdate.

(2.) The VRS was operational in the appellant's case with effect from 3/10/2002. Admitted position is that 21/9/1949 was recorded as his date of birth in his service book. This was opened in 1975. He had joined the organisation in the year 1971 and the Form "B" reflects his date of birth as 21/9/1945. 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 21/9/1945. He invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court in the year 2008 as his representations for adhering to 21/9/1949 as his birthdate failed to evoke positive response from the employer. That writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5690/08) was disposed of by a Single Judge with a direction to the appellant to make a fresh representation in light of the recommendations made by a committee of the employer themselves in his favour on the subject controversy. The competent authority was directed, in the same judgment delivered on 15/7/2008, to consider and decide on the same in accordance with law.

(3.) The appellant's representation was rejected by the competent authority-employer by an order passed on 13/10/2008 ("the rejection order"). The appellant's plea against the rejection order (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13195/2008) was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by an Order dtd. 24/11/2008 and his appeal (D.B.Special Appeal Writ No.1501/2011) 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 8/12/2016. It is this judgment which is under appeal before us. The appellant stakes his claim primarily on his service book maintained by the employer, where his date of birth is shown as 21/9/1949. Mr. Kaushal Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on a Life Insurance Corporation ("L.I.C.") Policy in which the same date of birth has been shown. This policy, however, was subscribed to by the appellant in the month of May, 1980. The appellant's counsel has brought to our notice sample copies of his pay slips for the months of August 1994 and August 2001. Both these pay slips carry the message, "Happy Birthday ***20/9/1949***". The appellant has also relied upon certain clauses of the Standing Orders of the employer in support of his claim. We shall refer to the relevant clauses thereof later in this judgment.