PREMLATA DEVI Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to make correction in the date of birth of the petitioner from 05.03.1952 to 04.08.1957 as has been held by the Medical Board on examination of the petitioner on 04.08.1982. The petitioner upon the death of her husband late Deo Kumar Prasad was appointed on compassionate basis on 04.08.1982 as a Piece Rated Worker vide letter dated 31.07.1982 and was posted in Sarubera Colliery. Since the petitioner was an illiterate lady and was not in possession of any documentary proof of date of birth, she was sent by the management to a duly constituted Medical Board, who on examination of the petitioner had assessed the age of the petitioner as 25 years as on 04.08.1982. The petitioner on coming to know that the respondents have treated her date of birth as 05.03.1952 on the basis of the Coal Mines Provident Fund records, agitated her grievance before the respondents, but the same was never considered. The petitioner therefore was constrained to move this Court for redressal of her grievances.

(2.) Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the respondents - CCL.

(3.) Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the background for sending the petitioner before the Medical Board was that neither the petitioner had any proof of her date of birth nor has any date of birth been assessed and entered in the statutory Form B Register maintained under the Mines Act. It has been submitted that the petitioner was appointed on 31.07.1982 whereas Medical Board had examined the petitioner on 04.08.1982 and in absence of any other concrete document to the contrary, the age assessed by the Medical Board has to be treated as a conclusive proof of age. It has further been submitted that the basis on which the date of birth of the petitioner has been treated as 05.03.1952 and by virtue of which the petitioner had already superannuated from service has not been disclosed by the respondents and only on the ground of a fictitious date of birth, the petitioner had been made to superannuate. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to the excerpt of the service register which reflects two dates of birth, one on account of the age assessed by the Medical Board and the other on the basis of the CMPF records. Mr. Tewari has also submitted that in terms of the provisions of the Joint Bipartite Committee for the Coal Industry (in short 'JBCCI') which lays down that in case of an illiterate appointee, the date of birth will be determined by the colliery Medical Officer keeping in view any documentary and other relevant evidence as produced by the appointee. It further mentions that the decision of the Medical Board shall be binding and final.