Parth Prateem Sahu JUDGMENT
Parth Prateem Sahu, J.
1. Correctness and sustainability of the order dated 30.08.2018 passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 138 of 2016 is put to challenge in this appeal wherein the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the Respondent-Employee while quashing the orders dated 05.11.2015 (Annexure P/1) and 02.11.2015 (Annexure P/2) respectively, wherein Appellant-Employer has determined the date of birth of the Respondent-Employee as 14.11.1958 by the Age Determination Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'ADC').
2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that, the Respondent-Employee was engaged as General Mazdoor with the Appellant-Employer on 26.11.1976. At the time of appointment on the post of General Mazdoor Category-I, he mentioned his date of birth as 14.11.1960, which was recorded by the Appellant-Employer in Form-B, Form PS-3 and Form PS-4 and other relevant documents maintained by them as per Rules. The Respondent-Employee during the period of his engagement in service, has been promoted on 16.06.1983 as C.D.S. (Trainee) in Clerical Grade-III and thereafter, C.D.S. Grade-II and C.D.S. Grade-I vide orders dated 15.12.1985 and 02.12.1989 respectively. Thereafter, vide order dated 09-17.08.1996, he was promoted and re-designated as Clerk Grade-I and posted at Jhilimili Project. The Respondent-Employee came to know that his date of birth has been corrected without his knowledge in office records from 14.11.1960 (original date of birth), to 14.11.1958.
3. The Respondent-Employee on the basis of information received by him from Section Officer, made an application for grant of relevant documents and thereafter, he has challenged the action of Appellant-Employer by filing Writ Petition (S) No. 2312 of 2013 before this Court. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 31.08.2015, disposed off the writ petition directing the Appellant-Employer to pass reasoned and speaking order with respect to determination of age of Respondent-Employee.
4. The Appellant-Employer in pursuance to order dated 31.08.2015 passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 2312 of 2013, referred the Respondent-Employee to ADC and the ADC after examining the Respondent-Employee, determined the date of birth/age as 14.11.1958. Based on the determination of age by the ADC, the General Manager (P&A), SECL Bilaspur informed to General Manager, Baikunthpur Area where the Respondent-Employee is in employment on 02.11.2015 (Annexure P/2) and pursuant to which, the Respondent-Employee was intimated that the ADC has determined his date of birth/age as 14.11.1958 vide letter dated 05.11.2015 (Annexure P/1).
5. The Respondent-Employee challenged both the orders i.e. Annexures P/1 and P/2 by filing Writ Petition (S) No. 138 of 2016 on several grounds mentioned therein. The Appellant-Employer submitted reply to the writ petition stating therein that Respondent-Employee was employed as General Mazdoor in the year 1976 and at the time of appointment of Respondent-Employee, there is no requirement of production/submission of educational qualification. The Ministry of Coal, Government of India, directed the Coal India Limited and its subsidiaries to verify the documents of workers who are likely to render service of more than 42 years vide letter dated 01.02.1999 and pursuant to this letter of Government of India, Appellant-Employer has taken initiative for determining the age of the employees working within it likely to render service of more than 42 years. The age of the employees of Baikunthpur Area was verified by ADC as per the letter dated 09.02.2009 issued by the Head Office. Looking to the fact that the Respondent-Employee will render service more than 42 years as per his date of birth recorded in the service records, he was also sent to the ADC for verifying his age. On recommendation ........