KAMTA PANDEY Vs. B.C.C.L.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER an employee of the Respondent No. 1 -Company has raised the dispute about the date of birth. According to the petitioner at the time of his appointment as Pay -Loader Operator in the year 1971, he was issued Identity Card, whereunder his date of birth is recorded as 01.07.1951. The same date of birth was reflected in the Matriculation Certificate as also the Seva Abhilekh (record of the Company). He has further relied upon the National Coal Wage Agreement III dated 25th of April, 1988. Instruction No. 76 of this bilateral agreement between the Company and the Unions deals with the procedure for determination/verification of age of employee which reads as under:

(2.) RESPONDENTS have, however, disputed the date of birth recorded in matriculation certificate and insisted on the date of birth as recorded in the Form B Register, which is said to be statutory one. 2005 (2) J.C.R. 474 (Jhr.), held as under:

(3.) IN another case in Bipin Bihari Singh v. Central Coal Coalfields Limited and Ors. L.P.A. No. 50 of 2006 decided on 15th of July, 2006 a dispute arose regarding the date of birth of the employee, who claimed that he was matriculate having passed Matriculation in the year 1963. It was stated that the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board, i.e. 06th of January, 1949 was conveyed by him at the time of his appointment with the Respondent -Company in the year 1971. However, he was sought to be retired on the basis of the date of birth shown as 06.01.1946. The employer -Company, however, relied upon the date of birth recorded in the Form B Register, which was 06.01.1946. A writ petition came to be dismissed and in the Appeal preferred by the employee a Division Bench of this Court comprising of Honble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Honble Mr. Justice D.P. Singh made the following observations: There is no doubt that matriculation certificate is an authenticatic document for the purpose of verifying the qualification of the candidate. Matriculation certificate is also a reliable piece of evidence for the purpose of ascertaining and verifying the date of birth of the candidate. But, at the same time the date of birth entered into the Form -B Register is also the conclusive evidence with regard to date of birth of the appellant was recorded as 6.1.1949 in the matriculation certificate, but at the time of appointment in 1971, his date of birth was recorded in Form -B Register as 6.1.1946 which was acknowledged by the appellant by putting his signature. Not only that, in the seniority list issued by the respondents in the year 1999 the date of birth of the appellant, was shown as 6.1.946 which was acknowledged by the appellant by pulling his signature. Not only that, in the seniority list issued by the respondents in the year 1999 the date of birth of the appellant, was shown as 6.1.1946. It further appears that when the appellant available L.T.C. in the year 2005, in L.T.C. Form -A filled up by the appellant he showed his age as 59.8. years. This L.T.C. Form -A was also signed by the appellant. In this way, notwithstanding the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate, the appellant, since the beginning, accepted and acknowledged his date of birth as 6.1.1946. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the matriculation certificate will not prevail upon the documents admitted and acknowledged by the appellant wherein his date of birth was shown as 6.1.1946. In our view, therefore, the learned Single Judge has not erred in law in dismissing the writ petition.