SHEO PRASAD SINGH SON OF LATE RAM DHANIK SINGH Vs. INDIAN IRON & STEEL COMPANY (NOW UNDER SAIL) THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of mandamus, commanding upon the respondent no.2 to rectify the date of birth entry made in the computer record of the company, which is contrary to all the entry made in the statutory records of the company i.e. Matriculation Certificate, Mining Sardar Certificate, Gas Testing Certificate, Mining Rescue certificate, and the petitioner has sought for declaration that the age of the petitioner in the statutory records to be treated as 29.10.1953 for the purpose of his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation.

(2.) The factual matrix, as has been delineated in the writ application in a nut shell is that the petitioner passed Matriculation from Bihar School Examination Board and as per the certificate, the date of birth has been recorded as 29.10.1953 as evident from Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner joined the Jitpur Colliery on 27.10.1971. In the year 1976 the petitioner passed the Mining Sardar Examination and as such Sardar's certificate was granted on 17.01983 under the Mines Act 1952, whereas the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 29.10.1953 as per the Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Similarly in other records like Gas Testing Certificate, Rescue Certificate and other statutory records, the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 29.10.1953. Since, in one of the old record of the company, the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 23.10.1947, the petitioner being apprehensive of premature superannuation submitted representation which did not evoke any response from the respondent authority. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in not rectifying the date of birth, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the doors of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance.

(3.) Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable either in law or in facts and is fit to be dismissed in limine on the ground of inordenate delay, laches and negligence. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that petitioner knowingly concealed his matriculation certificate at the time of joining in the year 1971, though he has alleged to have been passed prior to his joining. The date of birth recorded at the time of joining was 210.1947 in absence of any documentary proof relating to his age/date of birth and accordingly the petitioner was rightfully superannuated from the services of the company on 31.10.2007. As per the company's rule/policy, the age recorded at the time of joining shall be treated as final and binding. Subsequent changes by virtue of statutory qualification attained at a later date much after joining cannot be entertained for the purpose of correction of date of birth, photo copy of the relevant Date of Birth Rule of SAIL has been annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. It has further been submitted that there is no document in the name and style of non-executive information service and, therefore, in absence of any documentary proof relating to his date of birth/age at the time of joining, the age assessed by the company's medical officer prior to joining and as per records contained in B-Form register, the date of birth of the petitioner stood as 210.1947. Therefore, making constant representations as alleged by the petitioner, do not bestow any automatic right in change of the date of birth/age to what has been recorded at the time of joining.