SIBAN MAHATO Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 20.4.2006, by which, the respondents have admitted that the petitioner's correct date of birth is 10.8.1946 as recorded in Form-B instead of 1.7.1944 as recorded in N.E.I.S. records under the respondents, which was however, made the basis of his forced retirement on 30.6.2004. The respondents have, however, accepted the correct date of birth as 10.8.1946 and offered the petitioner to rejoin his service, however, with a condition that he would not claim salary for the period in which he was out of service. The petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the later part of the order by which though he has been directed to rejoin his service but the salary for the period for which he had been forced to be out of service have been denied to him apparently for no fault of his.

(2.) According to the petitioner he was a permanent employee of M/s BCCL posted at Gondudih Colliery as Line Mazdoor and his Personal Number is 02484293. Subsequently, as per his date of birth recorded in Form-B as 10.8.1946, he ought to have retired on 31.8.2006 after completing 60 years. He was however made to retire on 30.6.2004 by the order contained in Annexure-1 itself by treating his date of birth as 1.7.1944. On representation of the Union, the respondents realized their mistake and by way of Annexure-2 dated 20.4.2006 directed the petitioner to resume his service, however with the aforesaid conditions. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Deobrat Sahay vs. Coal India Limited, Kolkata & Others, 2011 2 JCR 344. As per the said judgment, according to the petitioner the meaning of "dies-non" has been interpreted and it has been held that in only three circumstances which are being indicated hereunder the period can be treated as "dies-non" which are:--

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant case neither the petitioner was absent from duty without prior permission nor he left duty without prior permission or he refused to perform duty assigned to him while remaining in office. Therefore, such conditions should not be imposed on resumption of duties is only due to admitted fault of the respondents. Petitioner, however chose not to join his service and retired on 31.8.2006 during the pendency of the writ application, which subsequently has already been brought on record by way of amendment by which petitioner has claimed post retiral dues.