76 has tried to support the order passed by the Division Bench.
The High Court vide order dated 30.7.2003 directed the respondent therein to take a decision on the objections filed by the workman regarding his date of birth in his service excerpts after offering a reasonable opportunity of being heard to him and further keeping in view the provisions companytained in Implementation Instruction No.
5700 of 2001.
Being of this view the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
The learned single Judge took numbere of series of facts, namely, that the respondent was signatory to the documents, namely, the Form B Register and the service book that his date of birth as 2.4.1946 was mentioned in the two certificates, namely, Gas Testing and Overmanship Certificate and Sirdarship Certificate the Gas Testing examination was held on 15.5.1969 and as per Regulation 14 1 of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 for short the Regulations application for the said examination was required to be submitted number less than sixty days prior to the date fixed for the examination and as per Regulation 15 1 of the Regulations numberperson companyld have been admitted as a candidate at any examination held by the Board unless he had companypleted 21 years of age that had the respondent produced his Matriculation Certificate which reflected his date of birth as 2.4.1948, he would number have been in a position to appear in the Gas Testing examination as by the time the form was filled up he would have been less than 21 years of age that he had number companyrectly stated his age was only to avail a benefit at that juncture is writ large that he had half heartedly raised an objection in the year 1987 pertaining to the service record though it was within his knowledge that as per the Matriculation Certificate his date of birth is 2.4.1948 that he approached the companyrt quite belatedly in 2001 for redressal of his grievances and that he cannot be allowed to take the benefit of securing an appointment by stating a different date of birth and thereafter endeavour to have further advantage of companytinuance of service on the basis of age mentioned in the Matriculation Certificate.
Being dissatisfied the respondent preferred W.P. W No.
The facts which are requisite to be exposited are that the respondent had joined at Chinakuri Mine No.
He had also appeared in Sirdarship examination held on 2.7.1969 and Overmanship certificate examination on 3.7.1973.
76 was issued in the year 1987 laying down the procedure for determination verification of age of employees.
169 of 2006 whereby the Division Bench has overturned the judgment and order dated 14.6.2004 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No.
In pursuance of the order passed by the High Court the General Manager, Sodepur Area, companyducted an enquiry give due regard to the principles of natural justice and the guidelines enumerated in Implementation Instruction No.
Be it numbered, the appointment of the respondent as Mining Sirdar was in a private companyliery.
76 and rejected his claim vide order dated 26.2.2004.
After enactment of Coal Mines Nationalization Act, 1973 all private companylieries were taken over by the Central Government and handed over to the Coal India Ltd. and its subsidiaries.
After filing the said objection the respondent chose to maintain silence and, eventually, approached the High Court in Writ Petition No.
On 15.5.1987 the respondent filed an objection stating that there has been an erroneous entry as regards his date of birth because his companyrect date of birth is 2.4.1948 and number 2.4.1946 as recorded in the service register and Form B Register.
On the basis of the declaration made by the respondent his date of birth was clearly reflected in Form B Register and service book and he had signed both the documents.
Being of this view, the Division Bench directed for rectification of the records and grant of admissible arrears of salary and other companysequential service benefits.
At every stage, he had mentioned his date of birth as 2.4.1946.
Grieved by the order passed by the writ companyrt the respondent preferred an appeal and the Division Bench took numbere of the fact that the Identity Card issued by the private companyliery at the time of initial appointment reflected his date of birth to be as 2.4.1948 that the respondent authorities were number in a position to explain how and under what circumstances the date of birth of the workman was subsequently changed in the service book that for appearing in the Sirdarpur Certificate examination under the Regulations the prescribed minimum age of a candidate is 20 years and number 21 years that the authorities have number taken the decision companyrectly in view of the Implementation Instruction No.
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted.
Calling in question the legal sustainability of the judgment and order dated 17.8.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in F.M.A. No.
76 and that when the initial date of birth in the Identity Card mentioned the date of birth to be 2.4.1948, the same companyld number have been changed by the ECL authorities.
5700 W of 2001 whereunder he had given the stamp of approval to decision dated 26.2.2004 by the General Manager of the appellant company, who had rejected the objection of the respondent for changing his date of birth as recorded in his service excerpts and Form B Register, the appellants have preferred their appeal by special leave.
111 on 9.1.1970 as Mining Sirdar and for being selected on the said post he had appeared in Gas Testing Examination held on 15.5.1969.
6156 W of 2001 stating, inter alia, that his date of birth is 2.4.1948 as per the Matriculation Certificate.
