Skip to content


Ramanand Singh Vs. Northen Coalfields Limited - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.P.No. 15752 of 2014
Judge
AppellantRamanand Singh
RespondentNorthen Coalfields Limited
Excerpt:
.....on the aforesaid post. the petitioner submitted an application on 27.5.2014 for correction of his date of birth on the basis of the higher secondary school certificate. however, the respondents treating the date of birth of the petitioner to be 4.10.1955, informed him that petitioner would superannuate from service on attaining the age of 60 years w.e.f. 31.10.2015. in the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this court. learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was asked to submit his matriculation certificate on 5.10.1986 for consideration of his case for promotion. thereupon, the petitioner submitted his matriculation certificate and was subsequently promoted to the post of pit munshi on 7.10.1986. it is submitted that in the.....
Judgment:

Heard.

In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter-alia seeks a direction to the respondents to treat the date of birth of the petitioner as 3.2.1960, which has been mentioned in the service record and to allow the petitioner to continue in service.

Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was appointed on 22.9.1983 on the post of Loader. The petitioner was asked to submit the matriculation certificate on 5.7.1986 so that his case could be considered for promotion to the post of PIT Munshi. The petitioner thereafter was appointed on the post of PIT Munshi on probation on 7.10.1986 and thereafter by an order dated 29.3.1987, his services were regularized on the aforesaid post. The petitioner submitted an application on 27.5.2014 for correction of his date of birth on the basis of the Higher Secondary School certificate. However, the respondents treating the date of birth of the petitioner to be 4.10.1955, informed him that petitioner would superannuate from service on attaining the age of 60 years w.e.f. 31.10.2015. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was asked to submit his matriculation certificate on 5.10.1986 for consideration of his case for promotion. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted his matriculation certificate and was subsequently promoted to the post of PIT Munshi on 7.10.1986. It is submitted that in the Higher Secondary School certificate, the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 3.2.1960 and, therefore, the case of the petitioner should be referred to the Age Determination Committee, as per implementation instruction 76.

In support of the aforesaid submission, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision in the cases of Matuwarram Chaurasiya Vs. Northern Coalfields Ltd., and others, 2015(2) MPLJ 485 and Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., and others Vs. Chhota Birsa Uranw, (2014) 12 SCC 570.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that on every document, which is in possession of the respondents, which has been counter-signed by the petitioner, his date of birth has been mentioned as 4.10.1955. It is further submitted that implementation instruction 76 has no application to the fact situation of the case and the petitioner is at liberty to raise an Industrial Dispute.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. From perusal of the communication dated 5.7.1986, it appears that the petitioner had submitted his marksheet to the respondents. Thereupon, he was appointed to the post of PIT Munshi. In the documents Annexure P/3 and P/4, the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 3.2.1960. It is also pertinent to note that in the Higher Secondary School certificate, the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 3.2.1960. The implementation instruction 76 provides that in case the appointees who have passed the matriculation or equivalent examination, the date of birth recorded in the said certificate shall be treated as the correct date of birth and the same shall not be altered under any circumstances. In somewhat similar circumstance, a Bench of this Court in the case of Matuwarram Chaurasiya (supra), has referred the matter to the Age Determination Committee.

For the aforementioned reasons, the respondents are directed to refer the case of the petitioner to the Age Determination Committee for consideration of the correctness of Higher Secondary School certificate and to get the same scrutinized. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.

Till the decision with regard to age of the petitioner is taken by the Age Determination Committee, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue in service, subject to furnishing an undertaking that in case the Age Determination Committee decides against the petitioner, he shall refund the salary for the period for which he has rendered his service.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

C.C. as per rules.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //