PHOOLCHAND TRIPATHI Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he had been appointed on 19.9.1972 on the post of Electrician in the Chasnala Colliery, a unit of Indian Iron and Steel Company. At the time of appointment, the petitioner had furnished his matriculation certificate showing date of birth as 3.7.1948 and hence, the petitioner was always under impression that the same date of birth has been recorded in the relevant records of the company. In course of time, the petitioner was given promotions and at every occasion, the concerned authority before giving promotion, used to scrutinize documents including educational certificate. But all on a sudden, the petitioner was served with a letter dated 31.3.2007 (Annexure -6) intimating therein that the petitioner is to retire on superannuation on 30.9.2007 as he will be completing 60 years of age on 19.9.2007. Being shocked with the said communication, the petitioner immediately made representation before the respondent No. 3 that as per the age recorded in the matriculation certificate the petitioner is supposed to retire on 31.7.2008 and therefore, he may be allowed to work till that date. But no order was passed, in spite of repeated reminders being given to them and hence, there was no option left with the petitioner but to move this Court for quashing the order contained in Annexure -6 intimating therein about the date of superannuation as 30.9.2007 and also for a direction to the authority to accept the age of the petitioner as recorded in the matriculation certificate.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the instruction No. 76(A) of NCWA -III, age of the employee shall be governed by the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate but the authority by giving complete go -bye to the said instruction made the petitioner to retire prematurely which is quite illegal, in view of the instruction No. 76(A) and also in view of the decision rendered by this Court in LPA No. 493 of 2006 and is also against the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kamta Pandey v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors. , holding therein that the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate would prevail over any other document showing age of the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order dated 31.3.2007 as contained in Annexure -6 is fit to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled to consequential relief.

(3.) THUS , the question falls for consideration as to which date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate or in the statutory Form B register be treated to be the correct date of birth.