SUGRIM SHAW Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELD LIMITED AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 17.1.2007 passed by the respondent No. 5 so far as the petitioner is concerned whereby and whereunder the date of superannuation of the petitioner has been fixed as 31.1.2007. Further a direction has been sought for to treat the date of birth of the petitioner as 12.6.1955 as recorded in the C.M.P.F. records or in the alternative to refer the petitioner before a duly constituted a Medical Board for assessment of his age. The petitioner was initially appointed on 13.7.1973 under the respondents as Wagon Loader in Dutta Colliery. Since the petitioner was an illiterate person, he could not produce his school leaving certificate and he had disclosed his date of birth as 12.5.1955 in support of which a horoscope was produced in order to make proper and correct entry in the service records of the employee. The respondents in the year 1987 -1988 had supplied the service sheet to its employees. The petitioner was also served with a service excerpt on 26.4.1987 from which the petitioner could gather that his date of birth is wrongly recorded as 2.1.1947 and the date of appointment has also been wrongly recorded as 12.9.1977. The petitioner approached the authorities for correction of his date of birth as 12.6.1955 but subsequently the petitioner could come to know that the same was never corrected when superannuation notice dated 17.1.2007 was served upon the petitioner informing the petitioner that he was to retire on 31.1.2007.

(2.) HEARD Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) MR . Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the date of birth in the statutory Form -B register is the conclusive proof of age and the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded in the said register as 1.1.1947 and on the basis of the date of birth recorded the petitioner has been superannuated from service. It has also been submitted that in the various documents which have been appended to the counter affidavit it could be deciphered that there is a consistent evidence to show that the date of birth of the petitioner is 2.1.1947. In such circumstance, therefore, it has been submitted that the petitioner has rightly been superannuated on and from 31.1.2007 and the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner for assessment of the age of the petitioner by the Apex Medical Board is to be negated.