RANDHIR SINGH Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing that part of the office order as contained in letter no. PO/KUGP/99/7912 -25 dated 17.2.2000 issued by the Project Officer, Kedla Underground Project, whereby petitioner has been intimated that he would superannuate with effect from 10.8.2000 and further to allow the petitioner to work till his date of superannuation i.e. 26.12.2004 by declaring date of birth of the petitioner as 26.12.1944.

(2.) PETITIONER 's case is that he passed matriculation examination from High School, Khaira in the district of Jamui and in the matriculation certificate his date of birth has been recorded as 26.12.1944. In 1976 petitioner was appointed as Mining Sirdar, Grade -I and pursuant to appointment letter, he joined as such on 3.3.1976. Petitioner 's further case is that his date of birth was recorded as 26.12.1944 in Form -B register on the basis of matriculation certificate. In the Identity -card his date of birth was recorded as 26.12.1944. It is contended by the petitioner that respondent no. 5, suddenly on 20.8.99 issued a charge sheet to the petitioner making allegation of suppression of factual information relating to his date of birth, inasmuch as in other certificates the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 10.8.1940. It is alleged by the petitioner that on 27.9.99, the Welfare Officer, Kedla Underground Project without notice to the petitioner altered the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in Form -B register.

(3.) MR . A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order of the respondent communicated vide letter dated 17.2.2000, whereby petitioner was superannuated with effect from 10.8.2000 as being illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 26.12.1944 in the matriculation certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board and therefore petitioner could not have been asked to superannuate with effect from 10.8.2000. Learned counsel further submitted that the date of birth of the petitioner has been consistently recorded as 26.12.1944 in the service records maintained by the respondents including Form -B register and therefore the respondent could not have altered the same without any notice and without hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel then submitted that in the Implementation Instruction No. 76 of the respondent, if there is discrepancies in the date of birth then the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate shall be treated as correct and the same will not be altered under any circumstances.