MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. RAM CHANDRA CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in W.P.(S) No. 5944 of 2006 is the appellant before us, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 26th February, 2009 whereby the learned Single Judge has quashed the superannuation notice dated 18th July, 2006 and 31st August, 2006 issued by the respondents where under the writ petitioner was intimated about the date of his superannuation as on 31st December, 2006.

(2.) The issue involved herein is essentially related to the correction of date of birth and that too at the fag end of the service of the petitioner. As the facts reveal, petitioner had joined service on 18th December, 1971 on the post of Rigger in the respondent company. Though he claims to have passed matriculation examination in the year 1968 but had not produced his matriculation certificate at the time of entry in service. Further, the employer/the appellant herein had by a general circular issued in the year 1975 allowed employees to submit applications for making entries in respect of their educational qualification in their service records. It was then that the petitioner submitted his application in the year 1976 seeking entry of qualification of matriculation in the service records. The certificate was accepted though with a warning given to him to be cautious in future. A letter was issued to him on 15th January, 1980 in confirmation of the fact that his qualification of matriculation had been duly entered in his service records. The age of superannuation was enhanced from 58 years to 60 years later on. According to the petitioner in his medical-book which was renewed from time to time up till 31st December, 2006 his date of birth has been correctly recorded as 3rd May, 1950 as per his matriculation certificate as per which he was to superannuate on 3rd May, 2010. Writ petitioner apprehended some interpolation and manipulation in his service records regarding his actual date of birth. He then filed a representation on 18th May, 2005 before the authorities for maintaining his correct date of birth in his service records. Being aggrieved by the issuance of superannuation notice writ petitioner approached the writ court in W.P.(S) No. 5944 of 2006.

(3.) We have considered the relevant materials on record and perused the impugned judgment. The narrative noted above leads us to the inference that the employee had set up an inconsistent case to seek correction of his date of birth that too at the fag end of his service in the year 2005. The employment was obtained in the year 1971 itself on the basis of claim of experience as a Rigger in Kalyanpur Lime and Cement Works for the period 1962 to 1967, for the same period in which the employee claims to have been pursuing the matriculation course. The employee claims to have passed matriculation in the year 1968 itself but had consciously not disclosed his qualification at the time of entry in service rather he had disclosed his age as 25 years as on the date of entry in service. A corresponding entry was accordingly made in his personal data form, which he duly signed without protest. In the year 1976, it was on his application only that entry relating to educational certificate was entered into in his personal data form without any correction in the date of birth. In the year 1980 also he faced a warning not to repeat misconduct in future. The sequence of events therefore show that before 2005 and for 34 years after having entered in the service in the year 1971 the employee had failed to make any effort to seek a correction of his date of birth. The employer has on its part explained that the date of birth entry was recorded on the voluntary disclosure of the employee at the time of joining in service. Now, at the fag end of service it is impermissible as per the statutory rules/standing instructions operating in the company. The respondents have also explained that reliance on the entries made in the medical-book or provident fund statements are on the basis of the self declaration form of the employee himself and do not correspond to the entries in the personal data form which is treated as sacrosanct for the purposes of date of birth and date of superannuation of employee in question. We do not find any reason to disregard the aforesaid contentions of the appellant. The learned Single Judge appears to have relied upon a judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kamta Pandey (supra) which is in respect of a coal company i.e., B.C.C.L., where the service conditions of the employees are governed by the bilateral agreement entered into between the management and the labour union. The service conditions or the bilateral agreement prevalent in the coal companies which provide for correction of date of birth entry of an employee, obviously do not apply to the case of the writ petitioner who was an employee of the Bokaro Steel Plant under the Steel Authority of India Ltd., a separate legal entity and an instrumentality of the State. The entry in the personal data form of the employee having remained consistent over a period of 35 years from his initial appointment, the employer was justified in issuing the notices of superannuation indicating the retirement of the writ petitioner as on 31st December, 2006.