Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
PETITIONER:
G.M., BHARAT COKING COAL LTD., WEST BENGAL
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SHIB KUMAR DUSHAD & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/11/2000
BENCH:
M.B. SHAH, & D.P. MOHAPATRA,
JUDGMENT:
D.P.MOHAPATRA, J.
Leave granted.
L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
M/s.Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., which is a Govt. Company and a
subsidiary of Coal India Ltd., was the employer of the
respondent - Shri Shib Kumar Dushad (hereinafter referred to
as ’the respondent’). The company through its General
Manager, Chanch Victoria Area, Post Barakar, District
Burdwan, West Bengal has filed the present appeal. The
controversy raised in the case centres round the date of
birth of the respondent. The respondent was initially
employed in Chirkunda Coal Company which was under private
ownership. At the time of entry into service, the year of
birth of the said respondent was entered in Form-’B’
register maintained under the Mines Act, 1952 as 1932. On
coming into force of the Coal Mines Nationalisation Act,
1973, the ownership of the coal mines in which the
respondent was employed, vested absolutely in the Central
Govt.; and thereafter it was transferred to the appellant,
free from all encumbrances. The service of the respondent
was taken over and the service records including the
Form-’B’ register relating to the respondent were handed
over by the erstwhile management to the appellant. As the
year of birth of the respondent was entered in the Form-’B’
register as 1932, he was to superannuate in 1992. The said
entry of the date of birth was carried over to the Form-’B’
register maintained by the appellant.
In 1973 the respondent acquired certificates of Gas
Testing and Mining Sirdarship having come out successfully
in the examinations conducted by the Director General of
Mines Safety. On the basis of the particulars submitted by
the said respondent, 9.2.1946 was mentioned as his date of
birth in the certificate. In 1987-88 when the appellant was
in the process of preparing records of the employees whose
services had been taken over under the Coal Mines
Nationalisation Act, the respondent, relying on the
aforementioned certificates claimed his date of birth to be
9.2.1946. In view of the apparent discrepancy in the date
of birth of the respondent entered in the Form-’B’ register
maintained under the Mines Act and the date mentioned in the
Gas Testing and Mining Sirdarship certificates , the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
appellant as per the terms of the settlement arrived at
between the management and the union representing workmen of
the company, requested its Medical Board to determine the
correct age of the respondent and asked the said respondent
to appear before the Medical Board. The Medical Board, on
examining the respondent, determined his age to be 52 years
as on 13.10.1988. On the basis of the report of the Medical
Board the date of birth of the respondent was taken as
13.10.1936 and the date of his superannuation as 13.10.1996.
After about three years the respondent filed the writ
petition bearing No.3537 of 1991 before the Calcutta High
Court seeking inter alia a direction to the appellant to
enter his date of birth as 9.2.1946. He placed reliance on
the certificates of Mining Sirdarship and Overmanship
granted by the Director General of Mines Safety. The
learned Single Judge of the High Court disposed of the writ
petition by the order dated 20.1.1994 directing the
appellant to consider the representation of the respondent
for correction of his date of birth. On 14th March, 1994
the respondent made an application for correction of his
date of birth as 9.2.1946. Considering the said application
of the respondent, the appellant, by the order dated
21/25.5.1994, communicated its decision that there was no
ground to re-open the question of the date of birth. The
respondent filed another writ petition, Civil Writ Petition
no.2717 of 1994 before the Calcutta High Court seeking a
writ/order for cancellation and withdrawal of the order
dated 21/25.5.1994 and to direct correction of his date of
birth as 9.2.1946. He also prayed for injuncting the
appellant company retiring him with effect from 1.7.1996 and
to allow him to work till 9.2.2006.
The appellant in its counter affidavit contended, inter
alia, that as per the Implementation Instruction No.76
issued by the J.B.C.C.I. the decision of the Board is
binding and final in the matter and further contended that
the claim of the respondent (writ petitioner therein) that
his date of birth is 9.2.1946 cannot be accepted for the
reason that, according to that date, his age would have been
about 14 years when he entered service in 1960 which is
against the minimum age, 18 years, prescribed for
employment, under the Mines Act, 1952. The learned single
Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant
to correct the date of birth of the respondent as 9.2.1946
and ordered that he was to superannuate from service in the
year 2006 holding, inter alia, that the genuineness of the
certificates in which the date of birth of the respondent
was entered as 9.2.1946 could not be questioned. The
appellant filed an appeal assailing the judgment of the
single Judge. The Division Bench of the High Court modified
the judgment of the single Judge to the effect that the
respondent is to superannuate in the year 2004 instead of
2006. The reason as stated in the judgment of the Division
Bench is as follows:
"It is ordered that the order made by the Trial Court
and dated the twenty fifth day of September, one thousand
nine hundred and ninety six be and the same is hear by
modified to the extent that since the petitioner joined in
the year 1960, he was at that time only 14 (fourteen) years
of age and the statutory age limit being 16 (sixteen) years
and he should not be allowed to continue up to Two thousand
six but he should continue up to Two thousand four and it
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
shall be treated as if he has joined at the age of 16
(sixteen) years. And it is further ordered that in all
other respects the order made by the trial court shall
remain operative."
The said judgment is under challenge in this appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
dispute raised by the respondent having been determined by
the Company following the procedure laid down in the service
regulations and his date of superannuation having been
calculated on the basis of the report of the medical board,
the High Court erred in interfering with the order passed by
the employer. The learned counsel for the respondent on the
other hand contended that the judgment of the single Judge
does not suffer from any illegality inasmuch as he based his
decision on the Gas Testing and Mining Sirdarship
Certificate which was issued in favour of the employee under
the provisions of the Mines Act. It was his further
contention that the Division Bench should not have modified
the judgment of the single Judge. He also contended that
the respondent has filed a cross objection challenging the
modification made by the Division Bench of the judgment of
the single Judge which, in the submission of the learned
counsel, should be allowed by this Court.
The first question that arises for consideration in the
case is whether the High Court, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, was right in interfering with the
date of birth recorded in the service records maintained by
the employer, in the proceeding under Article 226 of the
Constitution? From the facts of the case discussed in the
foregoing paragraphs the position that emerges is that the
respondent was an employee of a private colliery (Chirkunda
Coal Company) before being absorbed in the service of the
appellant on nationalisation of the colliery under the
Nationalisation Act. It was specifically asserted by the
appellant that the service records received from the
previous employer showed ’1932’ as the year of birth of the
respondent. Our attention has not been drawn to any
pleading in which the respondent denied aforementioned
assertion nor is any contemporaneous material placed before
us to show that the factual position was otherwise. After
about 20 years of service under the former employer and
under the appellant company, the respondent raised the claim
that his date of birth was 9.2.1946 and not 1932. The
appellant, following the procedure for determination of the
date of birth/age of an employee in such a case, referred
the matter to the Medical Board and instructed the
respondent to appear before the Board. The Medical Board
after examining the respondent determined his age as 52
years in 1988. Accepting the report of the Medical Board,
the appellant held the year of birth of the respondent as
1936. Thus the respondent was given the benefit of
superannuation in 1996 instead of 1992. Being dissatisfied
with the decision of the appellant the respondent carried
the matter to the High Court in the writ petition. At the
first instance, the High Court disposed of the case with a
direction to the appellant to consider the representation
which the respondent would make. The representation was
considered by the authority concerned and was rejected. The
respondent again approached the High Court by filing another
writ petition reiterating his claim that his year of birth
is 1946 and not 1936 which was dealt with in the manner
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
noted earlier.
Before entering into the question of validity and
sustainability of the judgment passed by the single Judge
and the Division Bench of the High Court in this case we
would like to make the observation that in a case where the
controversy over the date of birth of an employee has been
raised long after joining the service and the matter has
engaged the attention of the authority concerned and has
been determined by following the procedure prescribed under
Service Rules or General Instructions issued by the employer
and it is not the case of the employee that there has been
any arithmetical mistake or typographical error patent on
the face of the record, the High Court in exercise of its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution should not interfere with the decision of the
employer. In the present case the core question is whether
the two certificates subsequently obtained by the respondent
on 9.6.1973 and on 3.11.1983 should be accepted and the date
of the birth entered therein should be taken as conclusive.
This question is essentially one of fact. Determination of
the question requires detailed enquiry into relevant factual
matters. Without intending to be exhaustive it can be said
that some of the relevant aspects to be considered in such a
matter is whether the certificates have been issued by an
authority competent to issue the same under any statute or
statutory rules; whether the authority issuing the
certificate is required under the statute or rules to
inquire into the question of date of birth of the person
before issuing the certificate and on such inquiry the
authority has found the date of birth to be as entered in
the certificate or the entry has been made merely on the
disclosure made by the holder of the certificate. In the
former case some sanctity may be attached to the entry
regarding date of birth in the certificate though it is not
conclusive, in the latter case the entry having been based
on a declaration/disclosure made by the holder of the
certificate himself without any enquiry on the part of the
authority concerned is of little avail when a dispute
regarding the date of birth arises for determination. It is
relevant to note here that one of the objections raised on
behalf of the appellant against the certificates in question
is that the certificates were not issued by the Manager of
the colliery who was the competent authority in the matter.
If the respondent was basing his case on these documents
then it was incumbent upon him to place evidence on record
materials from which a conclusion can be reasonably drawn
that the date of birth as entered in the certificate is the
correct one. Similar is the position regarding the document
purportedly issued by the Head Master of Adarsh Madhya
Vidyalaya in which the respondent is alleged to have
studied. This document is stated to be a School Leaving
Certificate in which 1946 is entered as the year of birth of
the respondent. There is no material on record to show that
when this document was issued to the respondent; he had
produced a copy of the same when he entered service in the
private colliery (Chirkunda Coal Company) in support of his
age and if so why was the document not sent with the service
records when the service of the respondent was taken over by
the appellant. These are some of the questions
consideration of which will depend on the evidence, either
oral or documentary to be placed by the parties. The High
Court in writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for
undertaking such enquiry into disputed questions of fact.
At this stage it is relevant to state that if the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
respondent’s date of birth is taken to be 9.2.1946 then he
would have been 14 years of age when he joined service in
1960. No material is available on record that the
industrial undertaking in which the respondent joined
service was legally permitted to employ a minor. Indeed
this fact has been taken note of by the Division Bench of
the High Court in its judgment and on that basis the
Division Bench modified the judgment of the learned single
Judge and held that the respondent’s date of birth should be
so determined as to fit it with the position that the
respondent was 16 years of age at the time of joining
service. Unfortunately, the judgment of the Division Bench
does not discuss any material on the basis of which the
court took such a view. Where from the court got 16 years
as the minimum prescribed age for joining service is not
indicated in the judgment.
The date of birth of an employee is not only important@@
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
for employee but for the employer also. On the length of@@
III
service put in by the employee depends the quantum of
retiral benefits he would be entitled to. Therefore, while
determining the dispute in such matters courts should bear
in mind that a change of the date of birth long after
joining service, particularly when the employee is due to
retire shortly which will upset the date recorded in the
service records maintained in due course of administration
should not generally be accepted. In such a case the burden
is heavy on the employee who comes to the court with the
case that the date of birth in the service record maintained
by the employer is untrue and incorrect. The burden can be
discharged only by producing acceptable evidence of a
clinching nature. We are constrained to make this
observation as we find that in a large number of cases
employees who are on the verge of retirement raise a dispute
regarding correctness of the date of birth entered in the
service record and the courts are inclined to pass an
interim order for continuance of such employee beyond the
date of superannuation on the basis of the entry of date of
birth in the service record. Such a situation cannot be
commended for the reason that the court in passing such an
interim order grants a relief to the employee even before
determining the issue regarding correctness of the date of
birth entered in the service record. Such interim orders
create various complications. Anticipated vacancy for which
the employee next in the line has been waiting does not
materialise, on account of which the junior is denied
promotion which he has all along been lead to believe will
be his due on the retirement of the senior.
At this stage we may take note of certain instructions
which were issued by the appellant laying down the procedure
for determination/modification of date of birth of employee.
The document is styled as: "Implementation Instruction
No.76" "Procedure for Determination" "Verification of Age of
Employees". Its authenticity is not disputed by the
parties. Indeed the respondent employee has filed this
document as Annexure R-7 to the counter affidavit filed in
this court. Under paragraph ’A’ the manner of determination
of age at the time of appointment is laid down. Under
paragraph ’B’ are laid down the procedures to be followed in
cases of determination of date of birth in respect of
existing employees. Under sub-paragraph (i) of Paragraph
’B’ the case of the existing employee having a Matriculation
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the
recognised University or Board or Middle Form Certificate
issued by the Board of Education and/or Department of Public
Instruction should be treated as the correct date of birth
provided the documents are issued by the University/Board
prior to the date of the employment. Under sub-paragraph
(i)(b) of paragraph B it is provided that mining sirdarship,
wind up engine or similar other statutory certificate where
the Manager had to certify the date of birth will be treated
as authentic.
Provided that where both the documents mentioned in
(i)(a) and (i)(b) above are available the date of birth in
(i)(a) will be treated as authentic. In clause (ii) of para
B it is specifically stated that where ever there is no
variation in records such cases will not be re-opened unless
there is a very glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to
the notice of the Management. The Management, after being
satisfied on the merit of the case will take appropriate
steps for corrections through the Age Determination
Committee/Medical Board. In ’C’, ’D’ and ’E’ the procedures
to be followed by the Age Determination Committee/Medical
Board for determination of age of an employee are laid down.
The provisions read as follows:
"C)Age Determination Committee/Medical Board for the
above will be constituted by the Management. In the case of
employees whose date of birth cannot be determined in
accordance with the procedure mentioned in (B)(i)(a) or
(B)(i)(b) above, the date of birth recorded in the records
of the company, namely, form B register, CMPF Record and
Identify Cards (untempered) will be treated as final,
provided that where there is a nomination in the age
recorded in the records mentioned above, the matter will be
referred to the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board
constituted by the Management for determination of Age.
D) Age determination of the age, Committee/Medical Board
referred to above may consider their evidence available with
the colliery management and/or
E) Medical Board constituted for determination of Age
will be required to manage the age in accordance with the
requirement of Medical Jurisprudence and the Medical Board
will as far as possible indicate the accurate age assessed
and not approximately."
From the provisions in the instructions referred to
above, it is clear that in case of dispute over the date of
birth of an existing employee who has neither a
Matriculation Certificate/Secondary School Certificate nor a
statutory certificate in which the Manager has certified the
entry regarding the date of birth to be authentic the
employer is to refer the matter to the Medical Board.
Therefore, no fault can be found with the action taken by
the appellant to refer the case of the respondent to Medical
Board. The Medical Board as laid down in the Instructions
is to consider the matter on the evidence available with the
colliery management and in accordance with the requirement
of medical jurisprudence. As noted earlier, in the present
case the Medical Board determined the age of the respondent
to be 52 years in 1988 and the employer (appellant) accepted
such determination. In the circumstances there was hardly
any scope for the High Court to interfere with the date of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
birth as determined by the employer (appellant herein) and
issue a writ of Mandamus that the date as claimed by the
employee (the respondent herein) should be accepted. In the
case of Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department & Ors.
vs. R.Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp.(1) SCC 155, this Court
indicated the approach to be made by the Tribunal or the
High Court in a dispute regarding correction of age/date of
birth, made the following observations:
"An application for correction of the date of birth
should not be dealt with by the tribunal or the High Court
keeping in view only the public servant concerned. 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
in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose their
promotions for ever. Cases are not unknown when a person
accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement
of his immediate senior. 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. If no rule or order has been framed or
made, prescribing the period within which such application
has to be filed, then such application must be filed within
the time, which can be held to be reasonable. The applicant
has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which
may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of
birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on
the applicant, to prove the wrong recording of his date of
birth, in his service book. In many cases it is a part of
the strategy on the part of such public servants to approach
the court or the tribunal on the eve of their retirement,
questioning the correctness of the entries in respect of
their dates of birth in the service books. By this process,
it has come to the notice of this Court that in many cases,
even if ultimately their applications are dismissed, by
virtue of interim orders, they continue for months, after
the date of superannuation. The court or the tribunal must,
therefore, be slow in granting an interim relief for
continuation in service, unless prima facie evidence of
unimpeachable character is produced because if the public
servant succeeds, he can always be compensated, but if he
fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended
service and merely caused injustice to his immediate
junior."
[para 7]
In the case of Burn Standard Co.Ltd. & Ors. vs.
Dinabandhu Majumdar & Anr., (1995) 4 SCC 172, this Court
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
sounded a caution regarding entertaining writ petitions by
High Courts for correction of date of births. This Court
observed:
"Entertaining by High Courts of writ applications made
by employees of the Government or its instrumentalities at
the fag end of their services and when they are due for
retirement from their services, in our view, is unwarranted.
It would be so for the reason that no employee can claim a
right to correction of birth date and entertainment of such
writ applications for correction of dates of birth of some
employees of Government or its instrumentalities will mar
the chances of promotion of their juniors and prove to be an
undue encouragement to the other employees to make similar
applications at the fag end of their service careers with
the sole object of preventing their retirements when due.
Extraordinary nature of the jurisdiction vested in the High
Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution, in our
considered view, is not meant to make employees of
Government or its instrumentalities to continue in service
beyond the period of their entitlement according to dates of
birth accepted by their employers, placing reliance on the
so- called newly-found material. The fact that an employee
of Government or its instrumentality who has been in service
for over decades, with no objection whatsoever raised as to
his date of birth accepted by the employer as correct, when
all of a sudden comes forward towards the fag end of his
service career with a writ application before the High Court
seeking correction of his date of birth in his Service
Record, the very conduct of non-raising of an objection in
the matter by the employee, in our view, should be a
sufficient reason for the High Court, not to entertain such
applicants on grounds of acquiescence, undue delay and
laches. Moreover, discretionary jurisdiction of the High
Court can never be said to have been reasonably and
judicially exercised if it entertains such writ application,
for no employee, who had grievance as to his date of birth
in his "Service and Leave Record" could have genuinely
waited till the fag end of his service career to get it
corrected by availing of the extraordinary jurisdiction of a
High Court. Therefore, we have not hesitation, in holding,
that ordinarily High Courts should not, in exercise of their
discretionary writ jurisdiction, entertain a writ
application/petition filed by an employee of the Government
or its instrumentality, towards the fag end of his service,
seeking correction of his date of birth entered in his
"Service and Leave Record" or Service Register with the
avowed object of continuing in service beyond the normal
period of his retirement. [para 10] Prudence on the part of
every High Court should, however, in our considered view,@@
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
prevent it from granting interim relief in a petition for@@
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
correction of the date of birth filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution by an employee in relation to his
employment, because of the well-settled legal position
governing such correction of date of birth, which precisely
stated, is the following: [para 11] When a person seeks
employment, he impliedly agrees with the terms and
conditions on which employment is offered. For every post
in the service of the Government or any other
instrumentality there is the minimum age of entry prescribed
depending on the functional requirements of the post. In
order to verify that the person concerned is not below that
prescribed age he is required to disclose his date of birth.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
The date of birth is verified and if found to be correct is
entered in the service record. It is ordinarily presumed
that the birth date disclosed by the incumbent is accurate.
The situation then is that the incumbent gives the date of
birth and the employer accepts it as true and accurate
before it is entered in the service record. This entry in
the service record made on the basis of the employee’s
statement cannot be changed unilaterally at the sweet will
of the employee except in the manner permitted by service
conditions or the relevant rules. Here again considerations
for a change in the date of birth may be diverse and the
employer would be entitled to view it not merely from the
angle of there being a genuine mistake but also from the
point of its impact on the service in the establishment. It
is common knowledge that every establishment has its own set
of service conditions governed by rules. It is equally
known that practically every establishment prescribes a
minimum age for entry into service at different levels in
the establishment. The first thing to consider is whether
on the date of entry into service would the employee have
been eligible for entry into service on the revised date of
birth. Secondly, would revision of his date of birth after
a long lapse of time upset the promotional chances of others
in the establishment who may have joined on the basis that
the incumbent would retire on a given date opening up
promotional avenues for others. If that be so and if
permitting a change in the date of birth is likely to cause
frustration down the line resulting in causing an adverse
effect on efficiency in functioning, the employer may refuse
to permit correction in the date at a belated stage. It
must be remembered that such a sudden and belated change may
upset the legitimate expectation of others who may have
joined service hoping that on the retirement of the senior
on the due date there would be an upward movement in the
hierarchy. In any case in such cases interim injunction for
continuance in service should not be granted as it visits
the juniors with irreparable injury, in that, they would be
denied promotions, a damage which cannot be repaired if the
claim is ultimately found to be unacceptable. On the other
hand, if no interim relief for continuance in service is
granted and ultimately his claim for correction of birth
date is found to be acceptable, the damage can be repaired
by granting him all those monetary benefits which he would
have received had he continued in service. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that in such cases it would be
imprudent to grant interim relief."
In the case of Union of India vs. C.Ramaswamy & Ors.,
(1997) 4 SCC 647, interpreting Rule 16-A of the All India
Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, this
Court held that the date of birth as recorded in the service
book and the date as declared by an officer in the
application for recruitment has to be accepted as correct by
the Central Govt. and this can be altered only if under
sub-rule (4) it is established that a bona fide clerical
mistake had been committed in accepting the date of birth
(See para 21).
On the analysis and the discussions in the foregoing
paragraphs, we have no hesitation to hold that the High
Court erred in interfering with the date of birth/age of the
respondent as determined by the appellant. Accordingly, the
appeal is allowed. The judgment of the single Judge in writ
petition No.2717 of 1994 and the judgment of the Division
Bench, confirming the judgment of the single Judge with a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10
modification, are set aside. Writ petition stands
dismissed. Consequentially the respondent shall not be
entitled to any service benefit on the basis of the service
beyond the date/year of superannuation as determined by the
appellant, except the salary/wage already received by him.
No costs.