MADAN SINGH Vs. GANGANAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Madan Singh is an employee under the respondents. He entered the service of the respondents as a driver. His date of birth was recorded in the service book and service record as 30.6.1926. However, the petitioner did not know his exact date of birth. In a dispute between the employees of the respondents and the respondents an award was made by Sarvashri Kashi Nath Pandey and B.B. Thakur Pratap Singh. Term No. 12 of this award was as follows:

(2.) IT was agreed that for the purpose of retirement the age given in the P.F. will be considered as correct age but in disputed case the record In respect of age may be corrected in the light of school leaving certificate, age given In Insurance Policy or any other documentary proof. In order to ascertain the age given in the Provident Fund record every workman will be informed about his age as given in the Provident Fund record and in case he does not produce any evidence as stated above challenging the correctness of his age as recorded the age recorded will be considered as correct. If any employee is forced to retire on the ground of ill health or infirmity the same has to be certified by the Factory Medical Doctor first but in case where there is dispute over such certificate the certificate of the civil surgeon will be considered as final. The cases of the workman who have been retired some time back on the ground of being over age will be scrutinised and those who will be found within the age prescribed for retirement and physically fit will be taken back. The case of the petitioner in that his year of birth was 1933 though he did not know his date of birth. The fact that the date of birth of the petitioner had been recorded as 30.6.26 came to the notice of the petitioner, upon which he requested the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Sri Ganganagar on 29.9.83 to constitute a board for examination him with regard to his age. 2. A medical board was constituted by the Chief Medical and Health Officer vide Annx. 1 dated 1.10.83. The petitioner was examined by the medical board on 9.10.83 and the medical board determined his age on the date of examination to be 52 -53 years. The petitioner moved the Provident Fund Commissioner, Rajasthan to correct his age on the basis of such medical certificate vide application Annx. 2. He also moved an application to respondent No. 2 for correcting his age in accordance with medical board's certificate. This application was moved on 4.2.85. It appears that no action was taken on this application and eventually an order was passed inter alia stating that the petitioner would be attaining age of 60 years on 30.6.86 and hence he shall be retired from afternoon of 30.6.86. This was done by Annx. 4. The petitioner submits that it was obligatory on the part of respondents to have informed the petitioner of his date of birth as recorded in the P.F. record and on petitioner's challenging the same to ascertain his correct date of birth on the basis of evidence produced but the respondents failed to do so. They also failed to take into consideration that petitioner himself had moved for correction of age and no decision had been made on such application. Upon such averments, the petitioner prayed that order Annx. 4 may be quashed and respondents be directed to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the service record in terms of award.

(3.) THE petitioner filed a rejoinder to the reply/filed by the respondent and submitted that though Ex.R/1 bears his signatures, all that he remembers is that the form had been filled in by the clerk and the petitioner was merely asked to sign it. The petitioner did not know contents of Ex.R/1. The date given in Ex.R/2 did not tally with the date given in Ex.R/1. The petitioner pointed out in the rejoinder that medical board had been constituted by the respondents in certain other cases and dates of birth had been corrected on basis of such medical examination reports and there should be no discrimination against the petitioner.