LAL MOHAN SINGH Vs. BHARAT COOKING COAL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs:

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are set out as under: The petitioner claims that his Date of Birth is 10th June, 1953 as per the certificate granted by the Bihar School Examination Board for Class VIIth, dated 1st February, 1966 which is annexed as Annexure -1 to the writ petition. The petitioner was selected and appointed as Fitter in B.C.C.L. on 1.4.1972. In the form B register the Date of Birth was recorded as 1.1.1948 to which the petitioner has given thumb impression. According to the petitioner he was not provided with any document to that effect and in the year 1987 a document known as "Seva Abhilekh" was issued on 9.6.1987 wherein it was found that his Date of Birth was recorded as 1.1.1948 and in the adjacent column of the record it was recorded as 22 years as on 1.4.1972 which according to him was not only illegal but self contradictory because even if his age was taken 22 years as on 1.4.1972 then the actual Date of Birth as per mathematical calculation comes to 1.4.1950. The petitioner raised his objection and he was given a bonafide impression that the issue in controversy has been resolved in terms of the mandatory provision of Instruction No.76 of the NCWA -III.

(3.) THE main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned action of the respondents in seeking retirement before the due date of superannuation in terms with the date of birth recorded in the Middle School Board Certificate was highly arbitrary and illegal. It was also in gross violation of the Instruction No.76 of NCWA -III and thereby unsustainable and fit to be quashed. His further submission is that the impugned action of the respondents is also in gross violation of the principle of natural justice and fair play since the same is imaginary based on no evidence and therefore, amounts to punishment and for which no proceeding whatsoever has been conducted, giving opportunity to the petitioner. His further contention is that the petitioner has raised the age dispute much prior to the notice of retirement but the respondents did not take any bonafide steps or action for redressal of the grievance of the petitioner. The respondent wrote a letter to the respondent no.3 seeking clarification/verification of the certificate produced by the petitioner, which was never doubted/questioned by the concerned respondents, rather detail particular were sought way back in the year 2004 itself, upon which, though the concerned BCCL respondent should have immediately taken follow up action quickly but only in the year 2007 they wrote a letter seeking details from the petitioner to which, he replied and thereafter the matter was not even considered in accordance with law. His further contention is that in any case the certificate produced by the petitioner has not been declared illegal or doubtful by any authority and therefore the same is a valid and admissible document in the eyes of law and thereby binding upon the respondents in terms with certified Standing Instruction no.76. He further submits that it is an undisputed position that the petitioner appeared in the Bihar School Middle Board Examination in the year 1965 as a regular student of the Middle School, Poldih and was declared successful after passing the same and a certificate was issued to him bearing the Date of Birth as the 10th of June, 1953 which is fully legal and genuine and the same is admissible in terms with Instruction No. 76 of NCWA -III and thus, the entire action of the respondents are violative of well settled principle of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14, 16, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India and fit to be set aside.