BHAGIRATH SINGH Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 363 of 2015 dated 18th January, 2016 whereby, the prayer of this appellant (original petitioner) for change of date of birth from 8th of February, 1953 to 15th March, 1956 was not accepted by the learned Single Judge and hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant submitted that the date of birth of this appellant (original petitioner) is 15th March, 1956. Even as per the medical test carried out by the respondents the estimated age of this appellant was 18 years and above as on 15th April, 1974. Moreover, upon receipt of the notice dated 25th August, 2012 (Annexure2 to the memo of this L.P.A.) representations were preferred which are never replied by the respondents. These representations are dated 05.11.2011 and another is dated 29th May, 2014 (Annexure5 series to W.P.(S) No. 363 of 2015). These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S)No. 363 of 2015 dated 18th January, 2016 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Counsel for the respondents submitted that looking to the service excerpt especially 'Form B' as prescribed under Rule 77 and 77A(2) of Mines Rules, 1955 enacted under Section 48 of the Mines Act, 1952 which contains the date of birth of this appellant as 8th February, 1953. Moreover, this statutory 'Form B' has also been signed by this appellant. Never any objection has been raised for decades together by this appellant and the so called representation earliest was given in the month of November, 2011 and another after his retirement in the month of May, 2014. Even medical test was also carried out for which the report was given on 06.06.2013 which also reveals that this appellant was of the age more than 60 years.