Case: Eastern Coalfileds Ltd Vs. Bajrangi Rabidas

The facts which are requisite to be exposited are that the respondent had joined at Chinakuri Mine No. 111 on 9.1.1970 as Mining Sirdar and for being selected on the said post he had appeared in Gas Testing Examination held on 15.5.1969. He had also appeared in Sirdarship examination held on 2.7.1969 and Overmanship certificate examination on 3.7.1973. At every stage, he had mentioned his date of birth as 2.4.1946. On the basis of the declaration made by the respondent his date of birth was clearly reflected in FormRegister and service book and he had signed both the documents. Be it noted, the appointment of the respondent as Mining Sirdar was in a private colliery. After enactment of Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 all private collieries were taken over by the Central Government and handed over to the Coal India Ltd. and its subsidiaries. It is not disputed that the respondent was absorbed in the Eastern Coalfields Ltd., a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. It may be noted here that as disputes with regard to date of birth of employees had arisen, thewas issued in the year 1987 laying down the procedure for determination/verification of age of employees. On 15.5.1987 the respondent filed an objection stating that there has been an erroneous entry as regards his date of birth because his correct date of birth is 2.4.1948 and not 2.4.1946 as recorded in the service register and FormRegister. After filing the said objection the respondent chose to maintain silence and, eventually, approached the High Court in Writ Petition No. 6156 (W) of 2001 stating, inter alia, that his date of birth is 2.4.1948 as per the Matriculation Certificate. The High Court vide order dated 30.7.2003 directed the respondent therein to take a decision on the objections filed by the workman regarding his date of birth in his service excerpts after offering a reasonable opportunity of being heard to him and further keeping in view the provisions contained in>4. In pursuance of the order passed by the High Court the General Manager, Sodepur Area, conducted an enquiry give due regard to the principles of natural justice and the guidelines enumerated inand rejected his claim vide order dated 26.2.2004.5. Being dissatisfied the respondent preferred W.P.(W) No. 5700 of 2001. The learned single Judge took note of series of facts, namely, that the respondent was signatory to the documents, namely, the FormRegister and the service book; that his date of birth as 2.4.1946 was mentioned in the two certificates, namely, Gas Testing and Overmanship Certificate and Sirdarship Certificate; the Gas Testing examination was held on 15.5.1969 and as per Regulation 14(1) of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 (for short) application for the said examination was required to be submitted not less than sixty days prior to the date fixed for the examination and as per Regulation 15(1) of the Regulations no person could have been admitted as a candidate at any examination held by the Board unless he had completed 21 years of age; that had the respondent produced his Matriculation Certificate which reflected his date of birth as 2.4.1948, he would not have been in a position to appear in the Gas Testing examination as by the time the form was filled up he would have been less than 21 years of age; that he had not correctly stated his age was only to avail a benefit at that juncture is writ large; that he had half-heartedly raised an objection in the year 1987 pertaining to the service record though it was within his knowledge that as per the Matriculation Certificate his date of birth is 2.4.1948; that he approached the court quite belatedly in 2001 for redressal of his grievances; and that he cannot be allowed to take the benefit of securing an appointment by stating a different date of birth and thereafter endeavour to have further advantage of continuance of service on the basis of age mentioned in the Matriculation Certificate. Being of this view the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition.6. Grieved by the order passed by the writ court the respondent preferred an appeal and the Division Bench took note of the fact that the Identity Card issued by the private colliery at the time of initial appointment reflected his date of birth to be as 2.4.1948; that the respondent-authorities were not in a position to explain how and under what circumstances the date of birth of the workman was subsequently changed in the service book; that for appearing in the Sirdarpur Certificate examination under the Regulations the prescribed minimum age of a candidate is 20 years and not 21 years; that the authorities have not taken the decision correctly in view of theand that when the initial date of birth in the Identity Card mentioned the date of birth to be 2.4.1948, the same could not have been changed by the ECL authorities. Being of this view, the Division Bench directed for rectification of the records and grant of admissible arrears of salary and other consequential service benefits.

Reasoning: The controversy can be viewed from another angle. Thereafter, the learned Judges opined that there is no justification in the proposition that principle of estoppel would not apply in such a situation. As is manifest, in the case at hand the respondent stated this on the higher side to gain the advantage of eligibility and hence, we have no trace of doubt that principle of estoppel would apply on all fours. It is well settled in law that jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is equitable and discretionary. The power of the High Court is required to be exercisedreach injustice wherever it isIn Sangram Singh v. Election Commissioner, Kotah and another [(1955) 2 SCR 1] , it has been observed that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not to be exercised whenever there is an error of law. The powers are purely discretionary and though no limits can be placed upon that discretion, it must be exercised along recognized lines and not arbitrarily and one of the limitations imposed by the courts on themselves is that they will not exercise jurisdiction in such class of cases unless substantial injustice has ensued or is likely to ensue. That apart, the High Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can always take cognizance of the entire facts and circumstances and pass appropriate directions to balance the justice. The jurisdiction being extraordinary it is required to be exercised keeping in mind the principles of equity. It is a well-known principle that one of the ends of equity is to promote honesty and fair play. If a person has taken an undue advantage the court in its extraordinary jurisdiction would be within its domain to deny the discretionary relief. In fact, Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellants, has basically rested his submission on this axis. In our considered opinion, the Division Bench has erred in extending the benefit to the respondent who had taken undue advantage by not producing the Matriculation Certificate solely on the motive to get an entry into service. It is apt to note here that this Court in G.M., Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., West Bengal v. Shib Kumar Dushad and others [(2008) 8 SCC 696] has ruled that the decision on the issue of date of birth of an employee is not only important for the employee but for the employerview of our aforesaid premised reasons we are unable to concur with the view taken by the High Court in F.M.A. No. 169 of 2006 and, accordingly, the Judgment dated 17.8.2007 passed by the Division Bench is set aside.