CHANDRA BHUSAN Vs. SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court ventilating his grievance against the action of respondent No. 1 of not recording the correct date of birth of the petitioner in his service roll and making the petitioner to retire on the basis of wrong date of birth recorded in the service record of the petitioner. It is contended that the original mark-sheet produced by the petitioner specifically contains the right date of birth of the petitioner to be 11-4-1956. Such a document was made available at the initial time of recruitment. This fact is clear from the endorsement made on the document itself by the Employment Exchange and, therefore, it was necessary for the respondent No. 1 to act on the representation of the petitioner and to direct correction in the date of birth of the petitioner. It was found by the petitioner when a Pan Card was issued to the petitioner that his wrong date of birth was recorded in the service record and that being so, the representation was made by the petitioner. It was specifically pointed out by the petitioner that there is some sort of manipulation done in the service record of the petitioner and, therefore, the correction of the date of birth of the petitioner was necessary in terms of the conditions mentioned in the statutory agreement, However, since such a prayer of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents, he is required to approach this Court. The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Piece Rated Badli Loader in the establishment of South Eastern Coal Fields Limited in the year 1978. He was posted in Bijuri Sub Area, Hasdeo. The petitioner had completed 22 years of age on the date of his initial appointment. The relevant documents, such as mark-sheet of the examination of Higher Secondary School Certificate, were produced by the petitioner at that time. On 1-1-1985 the petitioner was promoted on the post of Explosive Carrier and subsequently on the post of Lamp Cleaner on 3-9-1996. Later on he was promoted as Lamp Charger category on 1-1-1999 and subsequently on the post of Lamp Fitter on 1-1-2006. At no point of time the petitioner was informed about correction in his date of birth. Even when he came to know about such mistake committed in recording the date of birth and made an application before the Personnel Manager of the respondent No. 1 on 9-4-1998, nothing was done by the respondent No. 1. The reminder was submitted by the petitioner on 12-9-2002 and he insisted for redressal of grievance but nothing was done. Since on the basis of wrong date of birth the petitioner is sought to be retired now, he is required to file the present writ petition.

(2.) Notices of the writ petition were issued. Under the order of the Court, respondent No. 2, the Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal, was impleaded as a party. The respondents have filed their returns. Respondent No. 1 has mainly relied on a document said to be prepared under Rule 48 of the Mines Rules, 1955. It is contended that in the said document the date of birth of the petitioner was not recorded but only the age of the petitioner was written, it was said that at the time of initial appointment the petitioner was aged 27 years. The initial date of appointment of the petitioner is 22-11-1978. However, nothing has been placed on record to indicate as to how this age was ascertained and whether any declaration was made by the petitioner in that respect or not. The return of respondent No. 2 is only this much that the mark-sheet produced by the petitioner was got verified from the records of the Board and it is found that the correct entries in the date of birth of the petitioner are made in the said certificate. The respondent No. 1 was called upon to produce the original document Annexure R-1 relied by the respondent No. 1, which has been produced and shown to the Court. However, even in the original record, there is no reference as to how age of the petitioner was mentioned in the statutory document.

(3.) The petitioner has filed certain application for taking documents on record. Such application has been considered and documents have been taken on record. A perusal of those documents will indicate that on certain occasion the petitioner was required to submit certain forms in which the details of his family were given. However, in some of the documents, manipulations have been found.