CHHUTU DUTTA Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is challenging the order passed by the respondents which is annexed as Annexure -3 to the memo of petition dated 10.10.2008 whereby a notice was given to the petitioner that petitioner is reaching the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years, on 31st January, 2009. and, therefore, he will be retiring on 31st January, 2.009. This communication has been challenged in the instant writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have taken signatures of the petitioner on blank document which is known as Form-B maintained by the respondents under Section 48 of the Mines Act, 1952, whereby and whereunder as per the service excerpts, which is annexed as Annexure -- 1 to the memo of petition, the date of birth of the petitioner is 20 years as on 31st January, 1973 and, therefore, the date of retirement of the petitioner will be 31st January, 2013 instead of 31st January, 2009. Counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that one Jaffery Committee was appointed by the respondents to rectify the mistake in the record of the respondents about the date of birth of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioners relied upon two decisions rendered by this Court which reported as 2009 3 AIRJhrHCR 94 and 2007 3 AIRJhr 113 and on the basis of these two judgments, it is submitted that the order passed by respondents at annexure-3 to the memo of petition deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner is entitled to continue in service upto 31st January, 2013.

(2.) Counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents have controverter Form-B. under Section 48 of the Mines Act, 1952 which reflects the actual date of birth of the employee which indicates. 24 years of age of the petitioner as on 31st January, 1973. This document is at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed by. the respondents. Similarly Annexure -B is the copy of 'Register of employee; which reflects 24 years of age of the petitioner as on 31st January, 1973 which is. also, signed by the petitioner with his photograph. Similarly, Annexure -C is Form 'B' in relation to the petitioner which also reflects the date of birth of the petitioner as 31st January, 1949. This document also contains the signature and photograph of the petitioner. Annexure -D to the counter affidavit is an identification certificate which also reflects the date of birth of the petitioner as '30-149'. This document also contains signature and photograph of the petitioner. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondent that petitioner has already retired from the services of the respondents as on 31st January, 2009 and an amount of gratuity payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has already been paid. The amount paid towards the gratuity is a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- to which the petitioner has acknowledged receipt of the said amount. This receipt has been annexed as Annexure - F. to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. Thus, the retirement benefits have already been accepted by the petitioner. This amount was paid to the petitioner way back on 17th February, 2009. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that Annexure - F is the service excerpts of the petitioner and it has been stated in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit that it has been manipulated by the petitioner and wrongly in Column 6(1), it has been mentioned as 20 years of age as on 31st January 1973. This is a manipulated document, otherwise looking to the earlier Annexures A, B, C and D, petitioner's age was 24 years as on 31st January, 1973 and in some others documents exactly the same date of birth has. been mentioned like the document at Annexure - C to the counter affidavit. The earlier annexures, namely A, B, C and D, which reflect the correct date of birth of the petitioner, these documents are having photographs of the petitioner and there is also signature of the petitioner. Thus, there was no question of any error on the part of the respondents whatsoever being raised. All these documents have been clearly signed by the petitioner at the relevant times and therefore, he has been retired on 31st January, 2009 on attaining the age of 60 years and, therefore, petition may not be entertained by this Court.

(3.) Counsel for the respondents relied upon two decisions of this Court which are KARU NONIA v. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED, 2002 1 JCR 418 and BANSHI RAWANI v. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED, 2006 1 JCR 418 and submitted that Form-B is the statutory form maintained under the Mines Act and the entries made therein can not be altered.