NUNU RAM VISHWAKARMA Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner having resigned from his earlier assignment applied for appointment on the post of Welfare Officer in the establishment of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited. Thereupon, interview letter was issued whereby the petitioner was directed to bring all the testimonials including matriculation certificate which he submitted on the date of interview. The respondents having been satisfied with the qualification, allowed the petitioner to join at Bhowra Colliery on 17.12.1974 as Welfare Officer. Further case of the petitioner is that on the basis of age recorded as 1.1.1948 in the matriculation certificate, an identity card was issued on 1.1.1977 whereby age of the petitioner was recorded as 29 years which corresponds to the date of birth of the petitioner. Thus, there was every reason for the petitioner to believe that date of birth of the petitioner must have been recorded as 1.1.1948 but to his utter surprise, he received a letter dated 4.8.2004 (Annexure 4) whereby it was intimated to the petitioner that he is supposed to retire on 31.1.2005 taking the date of birth of the petitioner as 4.1.1945. On receiving the said letter, the petitioner made several representations stating therein that his date of birth is 1.1.1948 which has been recorded in the matriculation certificate and hence, he is supposed to superannuate on 31.1.2008 and not on 31.1.2005 but the respondents did not pay any heed to it and made the petitioner to retire on 31.1.2005.

(2.) Being aggrieved with the action of the respondents, this writ application has been filed whereby letter dated 4.8.2004 by virtue of which the petitioner was made to retire on 31.1.2005 has been challenged to be bad, arbitrary and illegal.

(3.) The stand taken by M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner at the time of appointment as Welfare Officer submitted his application showing date of birth as 5.1.1945, i.e. 29 years. Subsequently in the year 1987, when the petitioner submitted a nomination form required to be submitted under Executive Cadre Retirement Gratuity Scheme, 1973, the petitioner declared his date of birth as 5.4.1945. Not only that the petitioner in his Executive Evaluation Report himself recorded his date of birth as 5.1.1945 which would be evident from Executive Evaluation Report of the year 1996-97, 1997-98 and 2002-03. On the basis of these entries relating to date of birth of the petitioner, when a seniority list was published in the year 1980, date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 5.1.1945. Thereupon the petitioner represented for correction of his age and his placement in the seniority list. On getting such representation, the petitioner was advised to submit relevant document. Pursuant to that, the petitioner did submit document relating to his qualification but did not submit the matriculation certificate. Thereupon, he was again asked to submit the matriculation certificate which he did.