^ AMENDED PETITION Ifl^ M-. BK: BBK tKV: _IN THE HIGH COURT GF_,JI@lGATyRE AT JABALPUR IM.P.j W.P.NO^ ^4/200QS 1?'3 C^/5 ooo PETXTIONER RESPONDENTS : Keshav Prasa.d Patel.son of Shri Nandhari Ram pafcel, aged about54 years, Ex-Terex- Operator, Grade-B, Katkona colliery SECL.District Koriya ,(M.P.) VERSUS 1) The General Manager, South Eastern coal Fieldg Limited, Baikunthout Area. District Koriya (M.P.) 2) The chied General Manager, Baikunthpur area, SEGL, Baikunbhpur, District Koriya (M.P.)i 3) The sub-Area Manageri Kabkona coliJ.ery, SEGL, Distrtafc Korlya (M.P.) 4) The Di.rector. south Eastern coal Fields Ltd. Seepat Road,Bilaspur (M.P.) ; ||iJjj •:11111 dl'Hfl PSKPSSOS :ySGER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONQTITUTIOK OF INDlA. :! 'l'ffl ns-w: mOH COURT OF CtfflATTISGARH AT BILASPUR X.F/? ^ WRIT PETITION No. 6314 of2000 PETITIONER : KeshavPrasadPatel. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The General Manager, S.E.C.L. & Others ^: T^ Post for pronouncement ofjudgment ori i?.?day ofJanuary, 2010. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri, Judge ^y/U1770TO' "^. .-^*" .^ ^ mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WMT PETITION No. 6314 of2000 : Keshav Prasad Patel. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The General Mmager, S.E.C.L. & Others PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri^, Present: Shri Ashok K. Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Majid Ali, Advocate appearing on behalfof Shri A.S.Gaharwar, Advocate for the respondents. JUDGMENT (Delivered onj^3ay of January, 2010) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 11.10.1999 (Annexure P/5) whereby the petitioner was informed by the respondents-South Eastem Coalfields Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'SECL') about his retirement from service ofthe company w.e./ 27.10.1999. The indisputable facts, in brief, are that the petitionerjoined fhe services ofthe respondent-SECL as Casual Labour on 1.7.1976. Thereafter, his services were regularised. The date of birth of the petitioner was recorded in service book as 01.08.1945 (Annexure P/2). In the Coal Mines Family Pension Scheme, 1971 (Annexure P/3), the date ofbirth of fhe petitioner was recorded as 01.07.1946. In the salary slips (Annexure P/4 colly., pages 15 to 20 ofthe paper book) the date ofbirth was recorded as 01.08.1945 and the date ofretirement was recorded as 01.08.2005. Vide the impugned order dated 11.10.1999 (Annexure P/5) the petitioner, without any rhyme or reason, was informed to retire from service ofthe respondent-SECL w.e./ 27.10.1999 on completion of60 years of age. 1 3. Shri Shukla, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent-SECL has completely ignored the date of birth recorded in various documents maintained by the SECL while issuing the impugned order dated 11.10.1999 (Annexure P/5) retiring the petitioner. from service on attainmg the age of60 years. The petitioner has produced Primary School Certificate (Annexure P/l) wherein the date of birth is recorded as 01.01.1946. Shri Shukla would further submit that the petitioner came to know for the first time when the retum dated 21.3.2005 was filed annexmg a copy ofthe service register (Aimexure R/2) wherein the date ofbirth ofthe petitioner was corrected and mentioned as 40 years as on 26.10.1979 as per medical report. It appears that the respondent-SECL has completely ignored the provisions oflmplementation Insta-uction No. 76, particularly clause (B) as in the present case, various certificates namely Coal Mines Family Pension Scheme, 1971, service record and salary slip, state some other date. The fact that the petitioner was not illiterate is clear from Primary School Certificate (Annexure P/l) which indicates the date of birth of the petitioner as 01.01.1946. In view of the above stated various documents, it is a cleaf case wherein the Age Determination Committee ought to have examined the case of the petitioner under the provisions of Implementation Instruction No. 76. Shri Shukla would next submit that the petitioner had no occasion t6 raise the issue with regard to correction of his date of birth as in the salary slips, it was clearly recorded that his date ofretirement was 01.08.2005 but the petitioner was retired in October, 1999. Thus, it cannot be held that the dispute was raised at the fag end ofhis career. Shri Ali, leamed counsel appearing for the respondents-SECL would submit that the petitioner has not produced Primary School Certificate at tfae time of his appointment. All the entries made in the records maintained by the respondent-SECL was not correct as after three years of his appointment, the Medical Board examined the petitioner and found him aged about 40 years apparently (Annexure R/l) on 26.10.1979. Accordingly, necessary correction was made in the service register (Annexure R/2). Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was 40 years of age as on 26.10.1979, his date of birfh was taken as October, 1939 and as a sequel, fhe impugned order dated 11.10.1999 (Annexure P/5) was issued directing the petitioner to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e./ 27.10.1999. Shri Ali would further submit that the case ofthe petitioner was considered under sub clause (iv) of clause (A) of the Implementation Instmction No. 76 treating fhe petitioner as illiterate. He would next contend that m case of illiterate eniployee, the report of the Medical Board is final and conclusive. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It appears that fhe respondents-SECL has completely ignored the various dates mentioned in the service book as well as Primary School Certificate which cleariy mentions his date of birth as 01.01.1946. Implementation Instniction No. 46 (Annexure R/3) deals with procedure for detemrination/verification ofthe age ofan employee. f 7. Sub clause (iv) ofclause (A) ofthe Implementation Instruction No. 76 , Procedure for DeterminatioiiA^erification ofAge ofEmployees, reads as under: "(A) Determination of the age at the time of appointment (iv) IIIiterate. In the case of appointees not covered under the foregoing clauses, the date of birth will be determined by the Colliery Medical Officer keeping in view any dociunentary and other relevant evidence as produced by the appointee. Date of birth as determined shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances." 8. Clause (B) oflmplementation Instruction No. 76 reads as under: "(B) Review determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees. i)a) In the case of the existing employees Matojculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the recognised Universities or Board or Middle Pass Certificate issued by the Board of Education and/or Department of Public Instruction and admit cards issued by the aforesaid Bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said Universities/Boards/Institutions prior to the date of employment. i)b) Similarly, Mining Sardarship, Winding Engine or similar other statutory certificates were the Manager had to certiiy flie date ofbirth will be treated as authentic. Provided that where both documents mentioned in (i) (a) and (i)(b) above are available, the date ofbirfh recorded in (i)(a) will be treated as authentic. ii) Wherever there is no variation in records, such cases will not be reopened unless there is a very glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the Management. The Management after being satisfied on the merits of the case will take appropriate action for correction through Determination Committee/Medical Board." 9. Clause (C) oflmplementation Instruction No. 76 reads as under: "(C) Age Detennination Committee/Medical Board for the above will be constituted by the Management. In the case of employees whose date of birth cannot be determined in accordance with the procedure mentioned in (B) (i)(a) or (B) (i)(b) above, the date of birth recorded in the records of the company, namely, Form B register, '"SnB^'. <b CMPF Records and Identity Cards (untampered) will be treated as final, Provided that where there is a variation, in ,the age recorded in the records mentioned above, the matter will be referred to the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board constituted by the Management for determination ofage." 10. Sub clause (i)(b) ofclause (B) ofthe Implementation Instmction No. 76 provides that Minmg Sardarship, Winding Engine or similar other statutory certificates where the Manager had to certify the date of birth will be treated as authentic. Sub clause.(ii) ofclause (B) provides that if there is a very glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the Management, the Management may refer the matter to fhe Age Determination Committee. Further, in clause (C) it is clearly provided that iffhere is a variation in the age recorded in the records mentioned in Fonn 'B' register, CMPF records and Identity Cards, the matterwill be referred to the Age Detennination Committee/Medical Board constituted by the Management for determination ofthe age. 11. In view ofthe foregoing, it is a frt case wherein the matter should be referred to the AgeDetermuiation Committee for detennination ofage ofthe petitioner as aforestated, haviflg regard to the various provisions oflmplementation Instruction No. 76. It is ordered accordingly. 12. Consequently, the writ pe^ttion is allowed to the extent indicated above. The responderit authorities are directed to refer the dispute to the Age Determination Coimnittee for determination ofthe age ofthe petitioner. The Age Determination Committee may also consider the grant of consequential reliefs, ifany, giereon. 13. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge Amjt