mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 4182 of2006 AF^> Petitioner Respondents Wazid Ali Versus South Eastem Coalfields Limited & Others. Post for pronouncement ofthejudgment and order on ll /09/2008. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge j* HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Writ Petition No. 4182 of 2006 Wazid Ali, S/o Abdul Razjaque aged 59 and a half years R/o 15 block colony, SECL Korba, Tah. And Dista-ict Korba, CG. VERSUS 1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited through its Chairman cum Managing Director SECL, Korba director SECL Korba Head quarter at Seepat Road, Bilaspur (CG). 2. Dy. General Manager, Manikpur Colliery of Korba Area South Eastem Coalfields Limited Korba, Tah. and Distt. Korba. 3. The Age Detennination Committee SECL, Korba Through its Chairman/Presiding Officer SECL, Korba. (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF FNDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Shri Amn Kumar Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Verma, Advocate for the respondents. JUDGMENT (Passed on this // day ofSeptember, 2008) ^<- 1. The petitioner, by this petition seeks quashing of the order dated 4-6.05.2006 (Annexure P/l), passed by the Age Determination Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee') i.e. respondent No. 3, further a direction not to retire the petitioner before 01.01.2008, with all consequential benefits. • 2.-' ^The brieffacts, in nutshell are that, the petitioner was appointed as Loader ,1 on 06.08.1968 at the Rajgamar Colliery, wherein, the date ofbirth ofthe petitioner was recorded as 01.07.42. Accordingly, by order dated 03.02.2002 the^etitioner was asked to sabmit details of eamed leave account, CMPFp gratuity for payment, as the petitioner was to retire w.e.f. 30.06.2002 on completion ofage ofsixty years. 6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 03.02.2002 (Annexure P/2), the petitioner preferred a writ petition,-being W.P. No. 1266/02, for change of his date ofbirth from 01.07.42 to 02.01.47. After hearing the parties, this Court directed the Committee as constituted under the National Coal Wages Agreement, to examine the dispute raised by the petitioner, with regard to his date of birth, within a period of four weeks, on 06.02.2006 (Annexure P/3). The Committee, having considered all the aspects, passed the order on 4-6.05.2006, holding that the date ofbirth shown in form-B ofthe service records is just and proper and needs no modification. Thus, this petition. Shri Anm Kumar Agrawal, leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner w.ould submit that the respondent has ignored the nirgam certificate issued by Basic Shiksha Parishad on 29.12.1990 under signature of the Headmaster, Primary School Amaon, Janpad Fatehpur (Annexure P/4), wherein, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 02.01.47. Secondly, the identity card issued by Coal Mines Authority Limited also indicates date ofbirth ofthe petitioner as 02.01.47 (Annexure P/5). The determination of age by the Committee is not just and proper, as no opportunity ofhearing was given to the petitioner to put forward his case. Per contra, Shri Vivek Verma, leamed counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner has failed to produce the alleged nirgam certificate which was issued in the year 1990 i.e. prior to date of his retirement, and also before the Committee. Secondly the petitioner was afforded opportunity ofhearing. He remained present on 16.03.2006 to put forward his case before the Committee. Shri Verma would further submit that the idegtity card was issued by,*the private colliery prior to nationalizatiop ofthe collieries, thus, no reliance can be placed on the same. It was next contended that fonn-B register clearly indicates date ofbirth of the petitioner as 01.07.42 (Annexure R/4) which was duly signed by the petitioner at the time of appOintment with the present employer i.e. respondents on 25.05.80. 7. Shri Verma would further contend that at the fag end of his service, the petitioner should not be permitted to raise the dispute of date ofbirth when the petitioner had in his possession the alleged nirgam certificate and other details since 1990. He relies on decisions ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Shib Kumar Dushad & Others and Coal India Ltd. and Another Vs. Ardhendu Bikas Bhattacharjee and Others . 8. ' I have heard leamed counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is evident that the petitioner was appointed with the private colliery i.e. Rajgamar colliery on 06.08.1968 and he allegedly obtained the identity card (Annexure P/5). Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed, after nationalization of coalfields, with the Westem Coalfields Limited, on 25.05.80. 9. It is crystal clear that in the form-B register, at the time of appointment, the date ofbirth.ofthe petitioner was shown as 01.07.42 which was duly signed by the petitioner. 10. The petitioner relies on a nirgam certificate (Annexure P/4) allegedly issued by Headmaster, Primary School Amaon, Janpad Fatehpur on 29.12.90, wherein, the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 02.01.47. The ,f- : petitioner has further relied on identity card (Annexure P/5), issued by ,1 erstwhile private employer. They are doubtful documents as the same were not produced either at the time of the appointment with coalfield on 25.05.1980 or thereafter till the time ofrettrement. * 2000 (8) SCC 696 2 2005 (12) SCC 201 ^^3@^ 1l'k.w^ "^s^ii^ \ '•• 12. The petitioner did not submit any representation before the order of retirement was passed on 03.02.2002. The petitioner was aware ofthe fact that the form-B register, which is the main part of service record, indicates his date ofbirth as 01.07.42. The petitioner has slept over the dispute for about 22 years. Thus, it is vyell settled principle of law that the correction in the enta-ies made in govemment records on the basis of which the employee got service cannot be allowed to be changed just a few years before retirement or at the fag end ofhis retirement. In the matter ofG.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (Supra), Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while dealing with the detemiination of age of an employee by the age determination committee under the provisions of "implementation No. 76", which is involved in the present case also, observed as under: "15. Before entering into the question of validity and sustainability of the judgment passed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court in this case we would Uke to make the observation that in a case where the controversy over the date of birth of an employee has been raised long after joining the service and the matter has engaged the attention of the authority concemed and has been determined by following the procediire prescribed under the service mles or geaeral instructions issued by the employer and it is not the case of the employee that there has been any arithmetical mistake or typographical error patent on the face of the record, the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 ofthe Constitution should not interfere with the decision ofthe employer." 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter ofState ofPunjab and others v. S.C.Chadha observed as under: "8. Normally, in public service, with entering into the service, even the date of exit, which is said as date of superaimuation or retirement, is also fixed. That is why the date of birth is recorded in the relevant register or servic.e-book, relating to the individual concemed. This is the practice prevalent in all services, because every service has fixed the age of retirement, and it is necessary to maintain the date of birth in the servic6 records." '* (2004) 3 SCC 394 ^3 In the matter of State of U.P. and another v. Shiv Narain Upadhyay , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "6. Normally, in public service, with entering into the service, even the date of exit, which is said as the date of superannuation or retirement, is also fixed. That is why the date of birth is recorded in the relevant register or service book, relating to the individual concemed. This is the practice prevalent in all services, because every service has fixed the age of retirement, aiid it is necessary to maintain the date of birth in the service records. But, of late a trend can be noticed, that many public servants, on the eve of their retirement waking up from their supine slumber raise a dispute about their service records, by either invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution or by filing applications before the Administrative Tribunals concemed, or even filing suits for adjudication as to whether the date of birth recorded is correct or not. 7. Most of the States have framed statutory rules or in absence thereof issued administrative instoTictions as to how a claim made by a public servant in respect of correction of his date ofbirth in the service record is to be dealt with and what procedure is to be followed. In many such mles a period has been prescribed within which if any public servant makes any grievance in respect of error in the recording of his date of birth, the application for that purpose can be entertamed. The sole object of such rules being that any such claim regarding correction ofthe date of birth should not be made or entertained after decades, especially on the eve of superanriuation of such public servant....." 15. Iu the matter of U.P.Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and others v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "16. .......It is thus seen from the above quoted judgments that this Court has consistently taken the view that con'ection in entries made in govemment records on the basis of which the govemment servant got the service cannot be allowed to be changed just a few years before retirement or at the fag end ofhis retirement." 16. In the matter of Coal India Ltd. (Supra) Their Lordships of the Supreme , Court observed as under: •>^ •-• "8. .....It is well settled that an employee will not be permitted to apply for chahge of date of birth at the fag end of his service career In the instant case we do not know on what basis after 38 years the Secondary Education Board in Bangladesh corrected the matricylation certificate. This is essentially a question of- fact, and in any case the High ©ourtought not to have exercised its writ jurisdiction to detennine the real date of birthj' 4 (2005) 6 SCC 49 5(2005)11SC'C465 ^ T Sahu 17. Applying the above well settled principles of law with regard to change of date ofbirth, to the facts ofthe present case wherein, the petitioner has not raised the dispute till the date ofretirement, the date ofbirth recorded in the fonn-B ofservice record is conclusive and fmal. 18. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge i*