Chandmani Manjhiyain …. … v. its Chairman-cum-Managing though 1.Bharat Coking Coal Limited Director, Koyla Bhawan, District-Dhanbad 2.The Director
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3815 of 2011 Chandmani Manjhiyain …. …. Petitioner Versus its Chairman-cum-Managing though 1.Bharat Coking Coal Limited Director, Koyla Bhawan, District-Dhanbad 2.The Director (Personnel), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyla Bhawan, District-Dhanbad 3.Chief General Manager, Washery Division, BCCL, District-Dhanabad 4.The General Manager, EWZ, BCCL, District-Dhanbad 5.Project officer, Sudamdih Coal Washery, BCCL, District-Dhanbad …. … Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK ------ : : ----- For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
Mr. D.K. Maltiyar, Advocate Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate 06/ 27.02.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The original petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing of the office order dated 7.2.2005, by which the petitioner has been informed that he would be retired with effect from 30.06.2005 on attaining the age of 60 years. He has also prayed for a direction upon the respondents for correction of date of birth as 01.07.1949 and to grant the consequential benefits thereof. 3. The facts of the case are that the original petitioner was appointed as General Mazdoor by the Management of BCCL on 01.02.1971. It is specific case of the petitioner that at the time of initial joining, the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 1.7.1949 in the different records, including Form-B register maintained by the Company. However, one fine morning, he received the impugned notice for retirement dated 7.2.2005 by which he was informed that he would be retired with effect from 30.6.2005, contrary to the actual date of birth mentioned in the service records of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a Title Suit No. 111 of 2008, but the same was dismissed only on the ground of limitation. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Mr. D.K. Maltiyar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that at the time of initial appointment, his date of birth as 1.7.1949 has been mentioned in the entire records, including Form-B register. -2- Learned counsel submits that Form-B is a statutory register and once the parties have agreed thereon, it was not incumbent upon the respondents to mention an imaginary date of birth. Learned counsel further submits that though the petitioner has preferred Title Suit No. 111 of 2008 for necessary correction in the date of birth, but the same was rejected only on the ground of limitation. Therefore, a direction be given to the respondents to change the date of birth of the petitioner in the service excerpts and after quashment of the impugned notice, the petitioner may be extended all consequential benefits. 5. Per contra no counter affidavit has been filed. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposing the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not open for the employer or employee to raise any dispute regarding date of birth at the fag end of service tenure. In the present case, the petitioner has not produced any legal document so as to record his date of birth on that basis. Therefore, he was sent for medical assessment and thereafter, his date of birth as 1.7.1945 was mentioned in the service excerpts including Form-B register. Never any objection was raised by the petitioner at the time of initial appointment regarding medical assessment. Learned counsel submits that in plethora of judgments, it has been decided that no correction in the date of birth can be made at the fag end of service. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has approached the competent civil Court in Title Suit No. 111 of 2008, which was finally dismissed on the ground of limitation. The present writ petition has been filed after retirement and as such, the same deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the entire records, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the writ petition for the following facts and reasons:- (i) The petitioner has raised the dispute regarding date of birth only after issuance of notice for retirement by filing Title Suit No. 111 of 2008. The competent court of civil jurisdiction has finally come to the conclusion that there is huge delay in filing the suit and thereby dismissed it on the ground of limitation. (ii) The claim of the petitioner that correction should be made as per -3- the Implementation Instruction No. 76 is not accepted to this Court on the ground that the petitioner has failed to submit any valid legal document at the time of initial appointment. Any settlement entered into by the parties has got its statutory force and once the parties have agreed in the settlement, the same cannot be challenged by the parties. (iii) Had the petitioner produced the legal document / matric certificate at the time of initial appointment, there was no occasion for respondents not to enter the date of birth of the petitioner as per certificate. (iv) In this context, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh, reported in (1993) 2 SCC 162 held that “No Court or the Tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights.” (v) The Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of decisions has held that request for change of date of birth in service records at the fag end of service career is not sustainable. In case of State of Tamil Nandu Vs. T.V.Venugopalan, reported (1994) 6 SCC 302, the Hon’ble Apex Court was clearly of the opinion that the government servant should not be permitted to correct the date of birth at the fag end of his service career. The Court, in very strong terms, observed as under:- ".....The government servant having declared his date of birth as entered in the service register to be correct, would not be permitted at the fag end of his service career to raise a dispute as regards the correctness of the entries in the service register”. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Secretary and Commissioner, (vi) Home Department & Ors. Vs. R. Kirubakaran, reported in 1994 Suppl. (1) SCC 155, has held as under: “7. An application for correction of the date of birth [by a public servant cannot be entertained at the fag end of his service]. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him -4- in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose their promotion forever. …According to us, this is an important aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the court or the tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such, unless a clear case on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent, the court or the tribunal should not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued, the court or the tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. … the onus is on the applicant to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book.” (vii) The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty & Ors., reported in (2000) 2 SCC 455, dealing with the issue relating to stale claim, has held that, reference of the said dispute at a belated stage is bad in eyes of law both on the grounds of delay as well as on non-existence of an industrial dispute. (viii) Taking into consideration the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as by different High Courts, this Court in the case of Ajit Singh Vs. M/s Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., Jamshedpur, decided in W.P.(L) No. 1251 of 2010, held that “if Government servants sleep over their right and are not vigilant, the Court cannot come to their rescue / aid and grant relief only because they were ignorant of the Rules.” 7. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, regulations, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned retirement notice dated 7.2.2005. 8. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is, hereby, dismissed. Rohit/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)