v .<» II,j ?,..j !1" c; <y,c •^" ctf ns a> :Js -<r i>'» .-.I "o 6 E•s ^. Ul 1/1 u.( d) 3o K.;. m l:f €^t *-' <^ h, f ^ ' a? s 91 ^f ^^ 1 a, w (It H!GH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH: BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 2059 OF 2004 PET!TIONER Itwari S/o. Anand Ram, aged about 48 years, SDL operator, Banki Main Mines, Banki Mongra, District-Korba, r/o. viilage Patharri, PO: Korbi, Tahsil Katghora, Distt. Korba (CG). ^\ RESPONDENTS Versus 1) South Eastern Coaifield Limited, through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District - Biiaspur (CG). Chief Generai Managsr, South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Korba, District - Korba (CG). Deputy Area Manager, South Eastsrn Coalfields Ltd., Banki Mines No.4, Banki Coliiery, Bank Mongra, Dlstt. Korba,(CG). 0/Vrit Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of india) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri 2) 3) Present: Shri P, Diwakar, Sr. Advocate with Shri P.R. Patsnkar, counse! for the petitioner. Shri H.B. Agrawai, Sr. Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counse! for the respondents. ORDER (Passed on ^o^Juiy, 2007) By this petition, the petitioner seeks correction of date of birth in the semce record on the basis of Primary School Certificate 1999 (Annexure P/7) and Schooi Transfer Certificate dated 19-12-2003 (Annexure P/6) 2- 2) The indisputabie facts, in nutsheii, are that the petitioner was appointed on 1-7-1980 as per menials' sen/ice register (Annexure R/4). As per agreement in the year 1980, it was decided that the employer/respondents would prepare a serviceexcerpt giving detaiis of the employee's name, father's name, permanent address, martial status, date of birth and the names of the dependants etc. in the service excerpt, which was prepared in the year 1987, according to iearned counse! appearing for the petitioner, the date of birth of the petitioner was wrongly entered as 5-7-1947. 3) The petitioner made a representation (Annexure P/1) stating the fact that he was assured about the correction of his date of birth which was never done. Being aggrieved, the petiiioner preferred a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.80/2004. This Court vide order dated 26-4-2004 (Annexure P/8) he!d that the case of the petitioner requires to be adjudicated by the Age Determination Committee as constituted under Nationai Coa! Wage Agreement !i! implementation instruction No.76 (Annexure P/5). Despite the observations passed by this Court, no decision was taken by the Age Determination Committee within a period of about three months, the pstitioner filed the preseni petition being Writ Petition No.2069 of 2004, seeking correction of his date of birth. 4) The respondents fiied the Age Determination Committee's report dated 15-6-2004 stating the date of birth of the petitioner as 1-7-1947 being the correct date of birth. This Court vide order dated 23-4-2007 directed the Age Determination Committee to furnish the reasons Tor coming to a particular conciusion that the date of birt'n recorded in Form- c. B is correct. Several opportunities weregranted to the respondents to supply the reasons, but the needful was not done. 5) Shri P. Diwakar, learned Sr. counsel with Shri P.R. Patankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 5-7-1956 as per the Primary School Certificate1999 (Annexure P/7). Secondly, elder brotherofthe petitioner namely Shyamlal is also working in Sura Kachhar Colliery and his date of birth was recorded as 13-8-1947. He is 13 years senior to the petitioner, on that ground alone, the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in the service book requires correction. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner has been representing the authorities since 1988, despte oral assurances given by the authorities, nothing has happened. The petitioner has made a reference of the report of the Age Determination Committee dated 26-5-1988 (Annexure P/6) whereinthe date of birth of his elderbrother namely Atma Ram was recorded as 17-4-1938 in Form-B and the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 1-7-1947. 6) Per contra, Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned Sr. counsel with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submh: that the service record (Form-B) retained by the respondents has difFerent figures and in the copy of the service record of the petitioner eertain interpolations have been made, therefore, the service record maintained by the employer/respondent is correct. With regard to the averment that his elder brother is 13 years senior when his date of birth was recorded as 1-7-1947, requfres proper adjudication by the Civil Court as to whether he was really elder to the petitioner and there wasa difference of 13 years between both brothers. Leamed counsel ^—^•^::-----7<- ;Sf ^- appearing for the respondents further expresses doubts about the authenticity of the Primary Schooi Certificate, 1999 as the same was issued in the year 1999 and It is no-where stated that as to what was the period of study in the schooi. it was further contended that the certificate of viliage Kotwar (Annexure P/4) was also not produced eariier. The said certificate was obtained in the year 2003 under signature of the ihen Kotwar. Schoo! Transfer Certificate dated 19-12-2003 (Annexure P/S) and the Primary School Certificate 1999 were not produced at the time of entry into service and the same were obtained iater on which create doubt about the authenticitv of the said documents. 7) Having heard tearned counsel for the paroes, perusing the pieadings and the documents appended thereto, it is evident that the Primary School Certificate, Korba (Annexure P/7) and Schooi Transfer Certificate dated 19-12-2003 (Annexure P/6) have been obtained subsequentiy. The seroice excerpt written by t'ne petitioner indicates certain interpolations iike in place of date of birth 5-7-1.947, it was scored out and "5-7-1956 was written and in piace of appointment, 1-7-1980 was scored out and 1-5-1979 was written. There were no initiais on the corrections made therein. A copy of the serv'ice recordavaiiabie with the empioyer/respondents indicates the date of birth as 1-7-1947 without any scoring out the date of appointment 1-7-1980, t'nereafter, it was written 1-5-1979 that was aiso scored out and 1-7-1980 was written. On the basis of service record, it is difficuit to find out what was the correct date of birth recorded in the sen/ice record. ^ / V- 8) Clause (B) (i) (a) of the National Coal Wage Agreement III Implementation Instruction No.76 (Annexure P/5) with regard to review/determination of the date of birth in respect of existing employees reads as under. "8) Review/determination of date of birth in respect of existina emplQvees: 1) (a) in the case of the existing employees matriculation certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by recognized Universities or Board or Middlepass certificate issued by the Board of Education and/or department of Public Instruction and admitcards issued by the aforesaid bodies shoutd be treated as eorrect provided they were issued by the said Universities/Boards/lnstitutions prior to the date of employmenf. 9) In view of the disputed dates given in the various certificates, it is necessary that the Age Determination Committee should consider all the cert'rficates and other documents to determine the age of the petitioner and pass reasoned order thereof. 10) Despite repeated opportunities given to the respondents, reasons have not been supplied to the Court. The Supreme Court in the matter of Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India and others clearly observed that the condition to give reasons introduces clarity and excludesor at any rate minimizes arbitrariness, it gives satisfaction to the party against whom the order is made and it also enables an appellate or super/isoiy Court to keep the tribunals within bounds. A reasoned order is a desirable condition ofjudicial disposal. 11) The Supreme Court in the matter of U.O.I. & others Vs. Jai Prakash Singh and another^ observed at para 8 as under: "8 Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amal 'AIR 1966 SC 671 22007AIRSCW1692 ^ 3'. \ f-! gamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) All E.R. ^f4^obssrved "the giving ofreasons is one of the fundamentals of good -administration". In Wexaixter Machinery (Dudley) Ud. v. Crabhee (1974 LCR 120) it was observed : "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial ofjustice". Reasons are live linlcs between the mind ofthe decision takertothe corttroversy in qu^tion andthe . decision or conclusion"' amved at". Reasons substitUte subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is thatjfthedecision reveals the "inscrutablefaceofthesphinx",itcan, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate funetion or exercise fhe power ofjudicial review in adjudging the validity ofthe decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufRcient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know whythe decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requiremente of natural justice is spelling outreasons forthe order made, in otherwords, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" isordinarily incongruouswith ajudicial or quasi-judicial performance". 1 ir-;.<: / •V- 12) As a result and for the foregoing reasons.this petition is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to refer the dispute to the Age Determination Committee to consider all the facts as stated above and pass a reasoned order with regard to the determination ofthe ageiofttie petitioneras expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period ofthree months from the date ofreceipt ofa copy of this order. No orderas to costs. Sd/- satisb K-Asaibotti Judge