Govind Prasad vs Western Coalfields Ltd.

Sanjay Yadav, J.—Heard on admission.

Petitioner, a General Mazdoor in the services of Western Coalfields Ltd., vide present petition, seeks direction for correction of his date of birth in the service record on the ground that having entered into service on 2.12.1983, his date of birth which ought to have been on record as 1.12.1961, has been recorded as 1.7.1957 and despite of representation given on 13.9.2011, no action has been taken by the respondents to correct his date of birth in the service book.

In the considered opinion of this Court, since the disputed question of fact arises, the same cannot be resolved in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner will have to seek recourse to Labour Laws for redressal of his grievance.

It has been held in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Others Vs. Chhota Birsa Uranw, -

In the corpus of service law over a period of time, a certain approach towards date of birth disputes has emerged in wake of the decisions of this Court as an impact created by the change in date of birth of an employee is akin to the far reaching ripples created when a single piece of stone is dropped into the water. This Court has succinctly laid down the same in Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department vs. R. Kirubakaran (supra), which is as under:-

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 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.

The same approach had been followed by this Court while deciding on date of birth disputes irrespective of the relief being in favour of the workman or the employer. (See: State of Punjab vs. S.C. Chadha State of U.P. & Anr. v. Shiv Narain Upadhyay State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Vali Mohd. Dosabhai Sindhi, State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble) Another practice followed by the courts regarding such disputes is that date of birth of an employee is determined as per the prescribed applicable rules or framework existing in the organization. Even this Court inspite of the extraordinary powers conferred under Article 136 has decided date of birth disputes in accordance with the applicable rules and seldom has the Court determined the date of birth as it is a question of fact fit to be determined by the appropriate forum. (See: State of Maharashtra vs. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble; Registrar General, High Court of Madras vs. M. Manickam; High Court of Andhra Pradesh vs. N. Sanyasi Rao).

In view of the law laid down in M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs. Chhota Birsa Uranw (supra), no mandamus can be issued to the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in his service record.

Therefore, while setting the petitioner at liberty to avail the remedy before the appropriate forum under Labour Laws, the petition stands dismissed. No costs.