GOBARDHAN MAHTO Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the office order as contained in memo No. 134 dated 25.4.2006 (Annexure 3) issued by respondent No. 4 whereby and whereunder petitioner was made to retire on 30.11.2006 taking the date of birth of the petitioner as 21.11.1946 which was never recorded in Form 'B' register or in other service excerpt, rather in those documents age of the petitioner has been recorded as 32 years as on 13.1.1981.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was employed on 30.1.1981 in Lohapati Colliery, a unit of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited as under ground Trammer. Thereupon, service excerpt was prepared on 22.3.1987 wherein age of the petitioner was recorded as 32 years as on 13.1.1981 in Form 'B' register. Accordingly, in the identity card the same age was recorded but all on a sudden, the petitioner was served with a notice on 25.4.2006 as contained in Annexure 3 whereby petitioner's date of birth was shown as 21.11.1945 and the date of retirement on superannuation was shown as 30.11.2006. Immediately thereafter petitioner lodged a written protest to the respondent but when nothing was done, the petitioner made a representation before the respondent No. 4 but in stead of passing any order on the representation, the petitioner was made to retire on 30.11.2006.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the age of the petitioner was recorded as 32 years as on 13.1.1981 in the statutory Form 'B' register which stood as such for years together, there was no justification on the part of the respondent to get it changed on the basis of the report of the Medical Board and that too without affording any opportunity of being heard before making him retired on 30.11.2006. In similar situation, this Court in a case of Baij Nath Mahato v. Bhart Coking Coal Limited (2008) 2 JLJR 308 did hold that such action of the respondent is highly condemnable and thereby respondent was directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. That order was even upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 167 of 2008.