SHIV PRASAD Vs. WESTERN COAL FIELD LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the petitioner appears to be that his right date of birth was not recorded in the relevant document and only on the basis of wrong recording of date of birth in the statutory document, i.e. Form-B, the petitioner is sought to retire w.e.f. 31st December, 2012. It is contended that the representations in this respect were made but since the same are not considered, the petitioner is required to approach this Court.

(2.) THE contentions of the petitioner are that he was initially appointed in the services of the respondents at a different place. After closer of the Mine where initially the petitioner was appointed, he was transfer to other Mine. At that time a document was issued in which the date of birth of the petitioner was not rightly mentioned, on the other hand there was manipulation. The father's name of the petitioner was also not correctly mentioned. Only on the basis of such documents, the entries in the date of birth of the petitioner were made. When he came to know about such a fact, he made a representation annexing with it the certificate of educational qualification where the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned. The said educational certificates were got verified by the authorities of the respondents but even then no action was taken for correction of date of birth and ultimately it was stated that the date of birth as recorded in the statutory documents is correct. Since dispute was required to be referred to the authorities or before the Age Determination Committee in terms of the statutory agreement, but no action was taken in this respect, right of the petitioner is jeopardised, therefore, he is required to approach this Court. It is contended that respondents are liable to be commanded to make correction in the date of birth of the petitioner.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for the parties at length and after minutely examining the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that there was some sort of error committed in mentioning of the date of birth of the petitioner in the statutory document. In fact the statutory document (Annexure P-1) was got prepared only on the strength of a document, which was issued by the authorities at the time of transfer of the petitioner. Apparently, there was some sort of manipulation in the date of birth of the petitioner. The father's name of the petitioner was wrongly recorded as Sushil Chandra but after correction the right name was recorded in subsequent Form-B. If the correction of the name of father of the petitioner could be done, at least the date of birth, where there was some sort of manipulation in the initial document, which was prepared at the time of transfer of the petitioner or even at the time when initially he was appointed way back in the year 1974, could have been ascertained and at least some sort of enquiry could have been conducted in that respect. It is not in dispute that such documents placed by the petitioner are not genuine documents as they are not disputed by the respondents. Once the date of birth recorded in the educational certificates of the petitioner was got verified from the school authorities by the respondents, it was necessary on their part to take such documents in consideration and pass suitable orders in this respect. One more fact is that the petitioner was issued a certificate under the Mines Act, 1952 by the competent authority categorically mentioning the date of birth of the petitioner to be 29th October, 1955. Said document was issued on 08.05.1980. At least this document could have been verified. Again when the document was issued on 18.09.1981 under the Mines Act, 1952 and under the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, the date of birth of the petitioner was categorically recorded to be 29th October, 1955. This being so, at least the matter could have been referred before the Age Determination Committee for ascertainment of the correct date of birth of the petitioner in terms of the statutory agreement. This being so, refusing to refer the matter to the competent Committee as per the agreement cannot be said to be just and proper.