MAHENDRA BHERIHAR Vs. NORTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner joined service as aMazdoor in the Tipong Colliery under the North Eastern Coal Fields, in the year 1966. The aforesaid colliery was owned, at the relevant point of time, by the Assam Railways and Trading Company. After the Coal Mines Nationalization Act was enacted by the Parliament in the year 1973, the colliery in question was taken over by the Central Govt and it was re-vested in Coal India Ltd. Under the scheme framed under the provisions of the statute with regard to the service of the existing employees, the services of the petitioner stood transferred to the respondent- organization i.e. Coal India Ltd. At the time of his entry into service, in the service records prepared by the employer, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 1.7.1940. The service record of all the employees of the Coal India Ltd were entered into their respective service books in the year 1987 and all service particulars were sent to the employees concerned for due confirmation. The petitioner was duly intimated of his service particulars wherein the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 1.7.1940. Necessary confirmation of such service particulars was made by the petitioner with a modification of his date of birth as 15.2.1948. Thereafter, the petitioner put up a representation on 11.8.88 staking a claim to have his date of birth recorded as 15.2.1948 instead of 1.7.1940. The claim being rejected by a notice issued on 8.7.99 informing the petitioner that he would be superannuated with effect from 1.7.2000, the instant recourse to the writ remedy has been made by the writ petitioner.

(2.) I have heard Mr. AB Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and Mr. MZ Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the writ petitioner in the course of his very elaborate arguments, has contended that in so far as the rectification/redetermination of the date of birth/age of the serving employees is concerned, the respondent authority has circulated a set of norms by an office memorandum dated 25th April, 1988. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the determination that the respondent authorities were required to make in so far as the age of the petitioner is concerned, would be covered by Clause (B) (1) (b) of the instructions issued under the office memorandum in question. Elaborating, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before the Court a Sirdar's certificate issued by the statutory authority under the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 wherein the date of birth of the petitioner was certified as 15.2.1948. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when a certificate as contemplated in Clause (B) (1) (b) of the norms applicable was available and in terms of the said norms, the contents of such certificate are required to be treated as authentic, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner to have his date of birth recorded as 15.2.1948 is wholly without any substance or basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the respondent authorities having themselves set the norms and the petitioner having satisfied such norms by placing before the authority the Sirdar's certificate, the respondents could not have acted contrary to the norms in force, while entertaining the petitioner's claim for a change of the date of birth. The respondents, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, must be bound to the norms in force and a departure therefrom cannot be permitted at the whims and fancies of the employer.