G.M. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD., WEST BENGAL versus SHIB KUMAR DUSHAD AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 336 · Decided: 02-11-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
G.M. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD., WEST BENGAL 
v. 
SHIB KUMAR DUSHAD AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 2, 2000 
B 
[M.B. SHAH AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] 
I 
Service Law: 
Date of birth-Change of-Employee raised dispute over his date of 
C birth long after joining service-Employer determined the correct date of 
birth in accordance with procedure prescribed under Service Rules or General 
Instructions-No arithmetical mistake or typographical errors-Interference 
with-By High Court-Held : Under such circumstances High Court should 
not interfere with the decision of employer-Constitution of India, Art 226. 
D 
The year of birth of the respondent-employee was recorded as 1932 in 
the Form B register maintaine(J by the appellant-employer under the Mines 
Act, 1952. The respondent was to superannuate in 1992 on attaining the age 
of 60 years. 
In 1973 the respondent acquired a certificate of Gas Testing and Mining 
E Sirdarship and his date of birth was mentioned as 9.2.1936 in the said 
certificate. In view of the apparent discrepancy in the date of birth of the 
respondent, the appellant's Medical Board determin~ the date of birth of the 
respondent as 13.10.1936 under the relevant Service Rules. Accordingly, 
the respondent was to superannuate on 13.10.1996. 
F 
Thereafter, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court 
for a direction to change his date of birth as 9.2.1936. The High Court 
allowed the writ petition. Hence his appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD : I. In a case where 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 
H that there has been any arithmetical mistake or typographical error patent 
336 
.-
G.M. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. i•. SHIB KUMAR DUSHAD 
337 
on the face of the record, the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary A 
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not interfere with 
. the decision of the employer. (341-F-Gl 
2. Date of birth of an employee is not only important for the employee 
but for the employer also. On the length of service put in by the employee 
depends the quantum of retiral benefits he would be entitled to. Therefore, B 
. 
-
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 c 
who comes to the court with the case 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. In 
a large number of cases employees who are on the verge of retirement raise 
a dispute regarding correctness of date of birth entered in the service record 
and the courts are inclined to pass an interim order for continuance of such D 
employees 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 E 
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 led to believe will be his due 
on the retirement of the senior. The High Court, therefore, erred in interfering 
with the date of birth/age of the respondent as determined by the appellant. 
(343-8-F; 349-C( 
F 
Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department v. R. Kirubakaran, 
(1994) Supp. I SCC 155; Burn Standard Co. ltd v. Dinabandhu Majumdar, 
(1995( 4 SCC 172 and Union of India v. C. Ramaswamy, (l.997( 4 SCC 647, 
relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6142 of G 
2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.2.99 of the Calcutta High Court 
in A.P.O.T. No. 587of1996. 
Anip Sachthey and Ms. Sandhya Rajpal for

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.