0

Avoidance to rectify particulars of the petitioner is bad in law: Bombay High Court

A company cannot show avoidance when an individual has approached them to correct his details and particulars in the company data documents. A division bench of SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND ANIL S.KILOR, JJ, while adjudicating the matter in Prabhat Kumar Titus v. Western Coalfields Ltd; [WRIT PETITION NO. 1315 OF 2021], dealt with the issue of the change of particulars of a Badli Loader.

The petitioner was appointed as a Badli loader in the respondent WCL. Though, his date of birth in Matriculation Certificate reflects as 6th December, 1961, it was recorded as 1st July, 1961 in the Form ‘B; maintained by the respondents. The petitioner had thereafter on 28th November, 1992 cleared an examination for the post of ‘Sirdar’ and at that point of time his date of birth was recorded as 6th December, 1961. The petitioner, thereafter, was transferred from Kanhan area to Umrer area, and at that moment his date of birth was recorded as 6th December, 1961. The petitioner had cleared the examination for the post of ‘Overman’ on 3rd July, 2008 and while joining as ‘Overman’, his date of birth was recorded as 6th December, 1961. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as ‘Senior Overman’ on 29th September, 2017, and since then he is working as ‘Senior Overman’. On 15th September, 2011, the Deputy General Manager (Personnel), Umrer published a notice on the notice board stating that as per the direction issued by the General Manager (Industrial Relation), the objections regarding date of birth should be submitted within the scheduled date mentioned in the notice. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his objections/representations on 7th October 2011, pointing out the clerical mistake committed in recording of his date of birth as 1st July, 1961, while as per Matriculation Certificate it should be 6th December, 1961. The petitioner had also enclosed the copy of ‘Matriculation Certificate’ along with his objection / representation in support of his request. Thereupon a notice was published by Manager (Personnel), Umrer Sub Area, on the notice board giving particulars of the employees who had raised objections. In the said list the name of the petitioner appears at serial number 6, and against the name of the petitioner there was an endorsement that, the case of the petitioner will be examined separately on the basis of Matriculation Certificate. However, when the petitioner found that the respondents are not taking any decision on his application, he filed a writ petition, namely Writ Petition No. 2195 of 2020 before this Court, which came to be disposed of on 14th January, 2021 on a statement made by the respondents that they will pass a fresh order in respect of the application of the petitioner for change of date of birth.

The Court upon considering the aforesaid facts stated that; “The respondents have failed to follow the procedure as laid down in the II 76. The aforesaid omission on the part of the respondents amounts to inaction whereby real injustice has been caused to the petitioner. The approach of the respondents in this matter clearly shows avoidance on the part of the respondents to rectify the date of birth of the petitioner, particularly when the respondents have not stated that the date of birth of the petitioner was not 6th December, 1961 as per the Matriculation Certificate. There is obviously an error committed by the respondents and the date of birth should have been corrected.”

Click here to read the judgment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat