NIRANJAN PRASAD DASONDHI Vs. BCCL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2013 with the grievance that he was prematurely retired on 01.01.2010 as per date of birth recorded in Form -B in the year 1986 on the basis of age assessment carried out by the Medical Board on 13.12.1985. He has sought reinstatement and continuance in service till 28th January, 2016. The petitioner has also received admissible post -retiral dues. However, it appears that the prayer for correction of date of birth as per the admit card of appearing candidate in Matriculation Exam in 1973 made by the petitioner has been rejected on 02.02.2009 itself by the order passed by the Project Officer, Murulidih 20/21 pits Colliery. The petitioner submits that when he was appointed in the year 1979, he had already appeared in the Matriculation Exam of 1973 in which he, however, failed. However, the petitioner admits that at the time of entry in the service in the year 1979, he did not produce any documents like admit card as appearing candidate in the Matriculation Exam in 1973 in support of determination of his age. It is the case of the petitioner that after age was assessed by the Medical Board, he represented in the year 10.06.1987 and on assurance given by the respondent authorities of BCCL, he kept waiting in the hope that the date of birth would be duly corrected. Form -B is at Annexure -3, which records the date of birth of the petitioner as 36 years as on 13.12.1985, however, in the said document against the educational qualification, it is left blank though the said document is said to have been prepared on 10.06.1987 itself. However, the petitioner points out that in service excerpts, Annexure -4 it shows his age as 37 years on 13.12.1985. The petitioner also submits that after his retirement, the respondent conducted a fresh Medical Board on 26.06.2013 which assessed his age in the range of 60 to 65 years as estimated by the Board and 62 years 6 months being the mean as on 26.06.2013. However, the said document, Annexure -10 dated 03/06.08.2013 also indicates that earlier superannuation notice will remain unchanged. He was advised to collect the legal outstanding dues from the office. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that because of this assessment, there has been a difference of 1 and 1/2 years in age from the earlier age assessed in the year 1985, which benefits have also not been given to the petitioner.

(2.) THE respondents, however, have taken a plea that the petitioner has raised this grievance after three years of his superannuation by filing the present writ petition and even beyond the fag end of his service. The date of birth of the petitioner has been duly recorded in Form -B register of Murulidih 20/21 Pits Colliery on the basis of medical assessment on 13.12.1985 which was duly notified on 22.01.1986. Therefore, the claim for enhance of superannuation age of the petitioner after his retirement is wholly untenable. He has also collected admissible post -retirement dues. It is further stated that the assessment of age having been assessed by the Medical Board in 1985, the petitioner is not entitled to question the correctness of his date of birth by raising a dispute at the fag end of service. Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent -BCCL on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Presiding Officer and Anr. reported in : 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 598 and in the case of Seema Ghosh v. Tata Iron & Steel Co., reported in : 2006 (7) SCC 722 : (AIR 2006 SC 2936).

(3.) HAVING gone through the relevant materials on record and upon consideration of rival submissions of the parties, it appears that the petitioner has approached this Court too late in the day for seeking reassessment of his date of birth and consequent superannuation date. It is not in dispute that at the time of entry in service, the petitioner did not produce any documents, whereafter his date of birth was assessed by the Medical Board on 13 -12 -1985 entered in Form -B register in 1986. In fact he did not pursue his grievance till his retirement before any Court of law. His representation has also been duly considered and rejected by the respondent -Project Officer, Murulidih 20/21 Pits Colliery, vide Annexure -6 dated 2 -2 -2009 itself on account of the same reasons that documents were not produced at the relevant time and dispute has been raised after more than 20 years of such assessment. As per the assessment conducted by the Medical Board in June, 2012, average age of the petitioner was assessed between 60 to 65 years. In the wake of aforesaid already existing assessment by the Medical Board as per which all the service records of the petitioner have been maintained and he has retired, after three years of his retirement, such reassessment of age could not be a conclusive opinion on the issue that the earlier age determination of the petitioner was not correct. The petitioner having been superannuated on 1 -1 -2010 and having collected post -retiral dues, no interference is required in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.