MATUWARRAM CHAURASIYA Vs. NORTHERN COALFIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction against the respondents for accepting the date of birth of the petitioner to be 15.7.1959 and to correct the entry in the service roll where the wrong date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 13.3.1955. It is contended by the petitioner that he came in the employment in the year 1981. He passed the High School Board Examination from the State of Uttar Pradesh in the year 1976. His name was recorded in the employment exchange in the year 1980. In the records of the employment exchange, the right date of birth of the petitioner was recorded. However, by some error the date of birth of the petitioner was wrongly recorded in the service roll. Despite this recording of the wrong date of birth, when the petitioner was declared as Mining Sardar and a certificate was issued to him in the year 1986, the right date of birth was mentioned in the said certificate. The petitioner was under the bona fide belief that his right date of birth is mentioned in relevant documents, and he was not required to make any complaint in that respect for correction of his date of birth. The fact remains that such recording of date of birth was not intimated to the petitioner and, therefore, there was no occasion for him to make any representation for correction of the date of birth.

(2.) In the year 1991, when the petitioner was issued a certificate under the Mining Act as Overman, his right date of birth was mentioned in the said certificate. In the year 1999, the petitioner was promoted as senior Overman, but at that time also it was not pointed out to him that any error was committed in recording of his date of birth. The petitioner thereafter when made the application for adding surname with his name, he mentioned the date of birth as reflected in the High School Certificate, which affidavit too was accepted by the respondents-employer, but no error in mentioning the date of birth was pointed out to the petitioner. When he came to know that the wrong date of birth is recorded in the service roll, for correction in it, he made a representation before the higher authorities. Since the representation earlier made was not being considered after getting the High School Certificate verified from the Council of Secondary Education, Uttar Pradesh, again the representation was made by the petitioner in the year 2003 and such a representation is rejected by the impugned order, therefore, the petitioner is left with no option but to knock the doors of this Court seeking a direction against the respondents to make correction in the date of birth.

(3.) Upon service of the notice of the writ petition, the respondents have filed their return, contending inter alia that all such allegations made by the petitioner are misconceived and misleading. It is contended by the respondents that Form-B was prepared under the provisions of Section 48, 51, 77 and 77-A(2) of the Mining Act and in that statutory document, the correct age on the date of appointment of the petitioner is specifically mentioned. It is contended that in all other relevant documents, the date of birth of the petitioner is specifically mentioned and such fact was well within the knowledge of the petitioner right from the date of appointment. The petitioner was issued the relevant certificate and information in respect of entries made in the service roll and in that information it was categorically pointed out that the date of birth of the petitioner was 13.3.1955. Certain information the petitioner was required to furnish about the family members, who are the dependents of the petitioner and while furnishing such information, the petitioner has signed the same. At that time also, no dispute was raised by the petitioner that his date of birth was wrongly recorded. In fact, the petitioner came on transfer from the other colliery and he was required to bring with him all the relevant documents such as CMPF pass book, identity card, attested photographs and Form-B register. From the said documents, the entries were made in the present establishment of the petitioner and, therefore, when the representation was made by the petitioner, it was already decided by the respondents on 15.1.1999. In view of this, since there was no error committed in mentioning the date of birth of the petitioner, there was no occasion for the respondents to refer the representation of the petitioner to the Age Determination Committee (hereinafter referred to as the ADC for brevity), in terms of the National Coal Wage Implementation Instruction No. 76. This being so, the claim made by the petitioner in the present petition is wholly misconceived and as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed.