KISHORI MAHTO Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides.

(2.) The delay in filing the appeal is condoned, sine we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay. Appeal is taken up for admission and with the consent of counsel for the parties it is being disposed of finally by this judgment.

(3.) The appellant entered the service of the respondents on 23.1.1981. According to the appellant his date of birth was 1.1.1953. Actually he was earlier given an appointment letter dated 2.5.1974, but he could not joint due to certain problems as is clear from letter dated 19/20.1.1981 (Annexure-4). The case of the appellant is that after he was given another letter of appointment dated 5.12.1979 (Annexure-2) he was medically examined and his age was determined as 27 years on 1.1.1980. But it appears that the age of the appellant was shown in the concerned service record as 3.1.1941. This entry continued. At some point of time the said entry is seen to have been corrected and the date of birth of the appellant is seen to have been shown as 1.1.1953. Annexure-7, the Service Register, indicates that the original entry regarding the date of birth of the appellant was 3.1.1941 and it is seen to be struck off and the entry corrected as 1.1.1953, as per medical certificate attached. According to counsel for the respondents, this entry was not even authenticated by even an initial of the authority who made the entry and there is no other record available to show that the entry was an authorised entry and not an interpolation. According to the appellant this entry of 1.1.1953 was accepted by the respondents. The respondents issued retirement order dated 11.12.2000 (Annexure-8) to the appellant Informing him that he is to retire on 3.1.2001 presumably on the basis of the entry of the date of birth made in the record as 3.1.1941. According to the appellant he made a representation before the respondents and submitted that since his date of birth was 1.1.1953, he cannot be retired on the basis of the alleged entry in the record as 3.1.1941. It is submitted that the said representation did not yield any fruit and the appellant was constrained to approach this Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 4407 of 2001, out of which this appeal arises.