TARAKNATH UPADHYAY Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner prays for quashing the letter dated 16/20.10.2003 being letter No. 3169 as contained in Annexure 16 by which the petitioner was informed that in view of the fact that he had attained the age of 60 years, he would therefore superannuate with effect from 31.3.2004 (forenoon). The petitioner also makes a prayer for quashing letter No. 3201 dated 24/ 27.10.2003 (Annexure 18) by which the respondents apparently rejected the representation filed by the petitioner and once again put him on notice that he would be superannuating with effect from 31.3.2004. As a consequence of quashing the aforementioned letters, the petitioner prays for issuance of an order commanding the respondents to correct his date of birth as assessed by the Medical Board.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he joined as a Literate Prop Coolie in the Gopalichak Colliery on 1.1.1969. On 7.5.1969, he passed the Mining Sirdar's Examination and accordingly was promoted as a Mining Sirdar in the same Colliery. On 8.7.1978, he passed the Overman's Examination whereafter he was posted on that post and subsequently in the year 1989, he was promoted as a Senior Overman. According to the petitioner, the dates of birth of several employees were wrongly entered in the service records as a result whereof those employees including the petitioner filed representations for correction. At paragraph 9 it has been stated that on seeing his service excerpts, the petitioner found that his date of birth had wrongly been mentioned in the Form 'B' Register as 15.3.1944 without his consent/signature. The petitioner states that as per Implementation Instruction No. 76 (Annexure 1) where there was no document available, a Medical Board was to be constituted for purposes of assessment of the correct date of birth of the employees. Accordingly, the case of the petitioner was also referred to the Medical Board for assessment on 28.11.1988 by Annexure 2. A Medical Board was constituted which assessed his age as 38 years as on 2.12.1988. According to the petitioner, if this assessment, (Annexure 3) is to be taken into consideration then 38 years as on 2.12.1988 would mean that his date of birth is 1950 and not 1944 as was wrongly recorded in the Form 'B' Register as also in the CMPF Records. Let it be recorded that the assessment was made on 2.12.1988 and thereafter, the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager Issued a letter to the Agent, being letter No. 78 dated 5/9.1.1989, wherein he transmitted the results of the age assessments made by the Medical Board is respect of 10 employees which included the petitioner at Sl. No. 5. This is Annexure 4 and upon perusal thereof, it appears that the petitioner's date of birth was recorded as 38 years as on 2.12.1988. Subsequently, a letter was issued by the Superintendent/Manager of Gopalichak Colliery being letter No. 92 dated 14.12.1992 wherein he was informed about the result of the Medical Board to the effect that it had assessed his age as 38 years as on 2.12.1988 and he was further informed that as per such assessment, necessary corrections were being made in the Form 'B' Register. Annexure 6, which is the extract of the Form 'B' Register, shows that the date of birth 15.3.1944, was corrected to read that he was 38 years as on 2.12.1988 in the light of M.B. (Medical Board). After the aforementioned correction had been made in the Form 'B' Register, the Identity Card was also corrected on 6.11.1989 and the date of birth 15.3.1944 was struck off and in its place, the date 2.12.1950 was entered. The petitioner has further stated that on 16.11.1997 an agreement (Annexure -8) was entered upon between the Management and Workmen wherein one of the terms was - 'The date of birth corrected and communicated in writing by the responsible Executives of the Area on the basis of recorded date of birth in Form B age assessed by authorized Medical Board or age recorded in Mining Sirdar's Certificate will be accepted for one time provided the case is not sub -judiced or taken legal shelter.' The petitioner then states that he come to learn that the entry of his age assessed by the Medical Board had not been entered in the computerized records and that his old date of birth, i.e. 15.3.1944 was still being treated as the correct date. The petitioner therefore filed a representation on 14.4.2002, which was forwarded to the concerned authorities whereafter on 17/19.7.2002 (Annexure 10), the Project Officer, Gopalichak Colliery wrote to the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager wherein while giving the details of the petitioner's dispute, also informed him about the Medical Board which had assessed his date of birth on '2.12.1988 as 38 years'. He also informed that this was communicated to the Agent by letter No. 78 dated 5/9.1.1989 (Annexure 4) under the signatures of the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, Putki Balihari Area and that the age assessed by the said Medical Board had already been recorded In the Form 'B' Register of the Gopalichak Colliery with due communication to the concerned officers.

(3.) THE petitioner states that in spite of these overwhelming documents in his favour, the respondents nevertheless issued the impugned superannuation notice dated 16/20.10.2003 informing him that he would be superannuating on 31.3.2004 - meaning thereby that they continued to treat his year of birth as 1944 and thus, proceeded to superannuate him when he reached the age of 60 years on that basis contrary to the findings of the Medical Board which would have allowed him to continue till the year 2010 as it had assessed his year of birth as 1950. The petitioner represented against the aforesaid action, but that was rejected by Annexure 18, i.e., letter dated 24/27.10.2003.