KAUSHALYA BHUIANI Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was serving with respondent No. 1 - Company and she has been stopped from attending the duty with effect from 4th February, 2002 on the ground that she has attained the age of superannuation on 11th February, 2001. According to respondents, the date of birth of the petitioner is 11th February, 1941, which fact is also disputed by her. Petitioner has placed reliance upon Form -B. wherein aeainst Column 10 i.e. the date of termination/leaving of employment is mentioned as 19th July, 2009. She has further referred to Annexure -2, which is the report of the Apex Medical Board wherein age of the petitioner was determined as 37 years, as on 19th July, 1988. Even reference is made to another document i.e., service excerpts, which also indicates the date of birth of the petitioner as 19th July, 1940, as per Medical Board. Even there is communication dated 27th December, 2000 on record, whereby the Personnel Manager, Jeenagora Colliery, has informed the Company for correction of date of birth in respect to the petitioner.

(2.) IN the counter -affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the actual date of birth of the petitioner is 11th February, 1941, as per the identity card issued by the Colliery wherefrom the petitioner was earlier transferred. They have also placed on record copy of identity card, as Annexure -A, wherein date of birth of the petitioner is shown to be 11th February, 1941 along with -photograph. Respondents have taken stand that medical report relied upon by the petitioner is in respect to one Kaushalya Devi, wife of Debu Bhuiya, who was medically examined. Incidentally, the names of both the ladies, who are employees of respondent No. 1 are the same, though the names of their respective husbands vary.

(3.) FROM the facts placed on record by both sides, it appears that there is some doubt regarding actual date of birth of the petitioner. However, the employer has not conducted any enquiry to determine the exact/approximate date of birth, nor providing any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and stopped her from performing duties on the assumed date of retirement. Petitioner is already out of job though she claims, she has right to continue in service till 2009.