^- 1^7 /^ fQ '>r BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^ WRITPETITION fS) N0. 2.68-7 /2009 Petitioner RESPONDENTS" _-^ .-/-3 •..A^" ^y ^^ ^x<-' ^f: ^/\f/ :^> •-^ Kulwant F^am, son of Chandan Prasad, aged about 53 years, occupation - Electric Fitter, Category -V, Kumda Colliery, Sub Area-Kumda (Bishrampur) Distt. Sarguja (CG) VERSUS 1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, through its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Head Office, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (CG) 2. Director (Personnel), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Office - Seepat Road, Bitaspur (CG) 3. Mahaprabandhak, SECL, Bishrampur Area, Distt. Sarguja (CG) 4. Up-Mahaprabandhak, Sub Area - Kumda, SECL, Area-Bishrampur, Distt. Sarguja (CG) 5. Sub Area Manager - Kumda, Area - Bishrampur, SECL, Distt. Sarguja (CG) 6. Manager (Personnei), Sub Area - Kumda (1&2), SECL, Area - Bishrampur (CG) WRIT PETITION U/A 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. <o s HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra IVIohan Shrivastava. J. WRIT PETITION (Sl N0.2687/2009 PETITIONER Kulwant Ram Versus South Eastern Coalfields Limited and Others RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION^FJNDIA Present: - Shri A. N. Bhakta, counsel for the petitioner. Shri H. B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, counsel for respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on 23rd July, 2010) With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. (2) This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved on account of inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not considering petitioner's claim for correcting his date of birth in his service book. (3) It is submitted th^the date of birth as recorded in the semce book is 07-01-1951 whereas^ctual dMfe of birth of the petitioner is 28-05-1956. tn the year 1987, when the petitioner came to know that his date of birth has been wrongly mentioned as 07-01-1951, he has submitted his certificate of matriculation. It is submitted that according to the Primary Schoot certificate, the petitioner's date of birth is 28-05-1956. It js also submitted that the respondents have taken decision on 26-11-2002 (Annexure P-1) wherein employees have been asked to submit applications for correction of their date of birth and the petitioner submitted an application in this regard on 21-12-2002 for correction, but on the said application. no enquiry has been made. :-""^ "%. ? S».^-^^:^^WS:^y.,SMs^^ .2-— <\ (4) On the other hand, submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that though there exists a policy of considering cases of determination of age of existing employees as contained in Implementation Instruction No.76 (Annexure R-3), case ofthe petitioner is not covered under "Clause-B" ofthe said circular as review determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees is permjssible only when there is variation or discrepancy in the service records. it is submitted that at the time of entering into service and subsequently also, the petitioner has declared his date of birth as 07-01-1951 and as late as in the year 2002, this dispute has been raised by the petitioner for the first time. Under these circumstances, petitioner's claim for correction of his date of birth based on documents subsequently obtained, which appears to be doubtful, is liabte to be rejected. (5) It is not disputed that the respondents have laid down a uniform poficy under Implementation Instruction No.76 laying down detailed procedure for undertaking review determination of date of birth in respect of the existing employees. The content of Clause-B of Implementation Instruction No.76 (Annexure R-3) shows that there is no absolute bar not to make any enquiry when there is no variation in service records. The aforesaid instructions contemplated enquiry in glaring cases of apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the Management. It is stated therein that the Management after being satisfied on the merits of the case, will take appropriate action for correction through Determination Committee/Medical Board. (6) From the return of the respondents, it is found that in fact, no consideration has been made on the petitioner's representation of year 2002 in the light of the aforesaid drcular i.e. Implementation Instruction No.76 (Annexure R-3). In a similar situation dealing with the case of an employee of ^y "'f. ti^.^S^J -^- ^ S.E.C.L., this Court has passed an order on 28-06-2010 in W.P.(S)No.6697/2008 (Dauram Chandra Versus South Eastern Coaffields Ltd. and others) and taking into consideration the scheme contained in Implementation Instruction No.76, this Court held:- 4. Upon being inquired, as to whether the case of the petitioner was considered on his representation, under the policy (Annexure P/6), learned counsel for respondents submitted that there is no material on record to show that his case was considered. A perusal of implementation instruction No.76 (Annexure P/6) shows that there is a policy of review of determination of date of birth contained in "clause B" of the said policy. Once the policy has been laid down, it has to be uniformly followed. Once a representation is made seeking correction of date of birth, the same is required to be considered in accordance with the policy (Annexure P/6) and the respondents are obliged to take decision one way or the other. It would be open for respondents to reject the claim if it is found upon inquiry that no case for correction is made out. Nevertheless, the petitioner js entitled to due consideration in accordance with implementation instruction No.76 (Annexure P/6). Delay in seeking correction, date of birth declared in statutory Form-B register and entries in service records ete. would be matters for consideration to take decision one way or the other for respondents, while considering the case of the petitioner according to Annexure P/6. (7) Therefore, in the present case also, taking into consideration the submission made and the facts and drcumstences available on record, 1 am inclined to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the policy/lmplementation (nstruction No.76 (Annexure R- 3)and take decisjon in accordance with law. (8) With the aforesaid direction, the petition is finally disposed of. Tumane Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude