TETARI DEVI Vs. BHARAT COCKING COAL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original writ petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Notice/Letter as contained in Memo No.158 dated 10/13/2/2015 (Annexure-5), whereby and whereunder, the date of superannuation of the original writ petitioner has been fixed as 30/6/2015 instead of 30/6/2017 contrary to the date of birth mentioned in the service-sheet as well as relevant documents. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to pay the entire consequential benefits of service as well as retiral benefits treating his date of retirement as "30/6/2017 with interest @ 12 % per annum.

(2.) The case of the original petitioner lies in a narrow compass. In terms of the settlement dtd. 13/9/1986 in connection with Reference No.10/1983, the Personnel Manager, Bhagaband Area vide letter dtd. 23/9/1986 issued appointment letter in favour of the original writ petitioner to the post of Miner/Loader. Pursuant to the same, the original petitioner joined the services and accordingly, on 24/3/1987, the respondents have filled up the date of birth as "29" years on 18/9/1986 in the Statutory Form ..B, meaning thereby that the date of birth of the original writ petitioner was assessed to be 18/9/1957. The said Statutory Form-B was prepared and signed by the respondent authorities including the Manager and Personnel Manager in which the age of the petitioner was mentioned as 29 years on 18/9/1986. The petitioner was also issued identity card in which the age was mentioned as 29 years as on 18/9/1986. The original writ petitioner was also promoted from the post of Category-V to Category VI w.e.f. 1/1/2008. It is specific case of the original writ petitioner that he was working to the satisfaction of the respondents, but to utter surprise, the respondent No.4 vide impugned Letter dated 10/13/2/2015 intimated the original writ petitioner that he would complete 60 years of age on 30/6/2015 and as such, going to superannuate on 30/6/2015. Pursuant to the same, the original writ petitioner on 23/2/2015 raised an objection before the respondent No.4 stating therein that he will superannuate in September, 2017 on completion of 60 years of age on the basis of entry made in his service excerpts, statutory form-B and other relevant documents and as such, notice of retirement should not be implemented, but no heed was paid and the original writ petitioner was forced to superannuate on 30/6/2015. Thereafter, vide office order dated 27/31/7/2015, he was promoted from Category- VI to Grade-C w.e.f. 1/1/2015. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed, challenging the pre-mature retirement notice dated 10/13/2/2015.

(3.) Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, original writ petitioner died and his legal heirs have been substituted in his place. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that impugned order/notice is not tenable in the eyes of law as at the time of appointment, the age of the petitioner was assessed to be as ..29 years.. on 18/9/1986 and same was recorded in his service excerpts, Statutory Form-B as well as other relevant records, meaning thereby that his date of birth was assessed as ..18/9/1957.. The Form-B /Service Excerpts being a statutory documents were to be considered for the purpose of fixation of date of retirement. The said Statutory Form-B and Service Excerpts were also counter-signed by the respondents authorities and at that time, they have not disputed the same and as such, there was no occasion for the respondent-BCCL to change the date of birth as per their own wish and give an imaginary date of birth and the petitioner ought to have been retired in the year 2017 based on the date of birth mentioned in service excerpts and Statutory Form-B as ..29 years.. on 18/9/1986. Learned counsel further argues that it is not open for the respondents to give an imaginary date of birth at the fag end of service career of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the Rule is for both sides i.e. for employer as well as for employee. It is not only prohibited for the employee from making representations or asking the employer to change the date of birth at the fag end of his service career, rather, it is also applicable to the employer not to make any corrections regarding the date of birth of his employee at the fag end of his service career. In the present case, it was the employer who has issued notice of retirement at the fag end of service career of the petitioner treating his date of birth as 18/6/1955, which is not permissible in the eyes of law. He further submits that the original writ petitioner is entitled for salary for the period from 1/7/2015 to 30/6/2017 beside the benefits of continuity of service for the purpose of determination of his retiral benefits and as such, a direction be given upon the respondents to pay the entire consequential benefits of service as well as retiral benefits treating his date of retirement as 30/6/2017 with 12 % interest per annum to the legal heirs of original writ petitioner.