BIKRAM RAJBHAR Vs. COAL INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ by an ex-employee of Eastern Coal Fields Limited, for correction of his date of birth. Before filing of this writ application on 3rd June 2004, the writ petitioner was superannuated with effect from 1st June 2004. If this writ is allowed and his date of birth corrected in the records as he prays, that is, if his age is recorded as 22 years as on the date of his appointment i.e. 15th May 1973, he will have service left till about 1st July 2011.

(2.) The writ petitioner was appointed on 15th May 1973 as an underground loader in the Damra Colliery in Kalipahari area, under the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 is a subsidiary of the respondent No.1. At the time of his appointment his age was recorded as 22 years as on the date of appointment, that is, 15th May 1973. He continued in this way for many years. Sometime in the middle of the last decade, as per rules of the respondent No.2, he was referred to and examined by a medical board for determination of his date of birth, as his age recorded with the respondent No.2 at the time of his employment was very approximate. This medical board assessed his age to be between 50 and 55 years as on 21st November 1996. A mid point of that assessment was taken and his age was determined as 52 years as on that date. Now, on the basis of that determination the date of birth of the writ petitioner was 21st May 1944. Consequently, with the close of May 2004 he was supposed to retire with effect from 1st June 2004.

(3.) It appears from the records that as retirement was approaching, the writ petitioner started initiating action, sometime in the year 2003, through trade unions for correction of his date of birth. He wanted correction of the said service records on the basis of his recorded date of birth at the time of his appointment. The respondent employer refused to make such correction. In my view, the writ petitioner would have been in quite a different position had he taken the step that he does now, immediately after the medical board determined his age as 52 years as on 21st November 1996. He did not take such action. He accepted such determination. The records were accordingly altered so as to show 21st May 1944 as his date of birth. The sheer fact that he slept over the matter for eight years and filed this writ application after superannuation, disentitles this writ petitioner to any relief. I further hold that the determination of his age by the medical board must have been correct; otherwise the writ petitioner would have surely challenged it. Moreover, he continued to work after alteration of the records of the said respondent company, changing his date of birth to 21st May 1944, till superannuation. In view of the above conduct of the writ petitioner, I do not think that his case is at all bonafide. For these reasons I would dismiss this writ application by vacating any subsisting interim order. However, there will be no order as to costs.