ISLAM MIAN Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has sought for direction upon the respondents to produce the Form-B Register and for correction of date of birth as per entry made in statutory Form-B Register.

(2.) The brief facts, as depicted in the writ application, is that petitioner was employed as a 'Dresser' under the respondent company. At the time of appointment the petitioner gave his date of birth as 01.07.1951 and on the basis of date of birth furnished by the petitioner, the petitioner was served with service excerpts in the year 1987 in which the date of birth was rightly entered as 01.07.1951 as per Annexure-1 to the writ application. It has been averred that initially the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 02.06.1947 and when the error was brought to the notice of the respondents the same has been corrected as 01.07.1951. The petitioner was subsequently issued identity card which also shows his date of birth 01.07.1951 as evident from Annexure-2. In the C.M.P.F records, the date of birth of the petitioner has been entered as 01.07.1951 and even in the statutory Form-B register which is maintained by the respondents, the date of birth of the petitioner has been entered as 01.07.1951. On the basis of documents namely N.E.I.S the date of birth of the petitioner has been entered as 02.06.1947 and on the basis of the same the petitioner was compelled to retire on 30.06.2007. Being aggrieved by the discrepancy made in Form-B register and N.E.I.S, the petitioner submitted representations before the respondent authorities vide Annexure-3 series, which fell on deaf ears. Being aggrieved by inaction of the respondents, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that the action of the respondents in not correcting the date of birth, in spite of repeated reminders, amounts to arbitrary exercise of power. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been compelled to superannuate from an anterior date prior to his actual date of retirement.