Eastern Coalfields Limited And Others v. Ram Samugh Yadav And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

Respondent 1 joined service in 1973. His date of birth was recorded as 1-7-1945/1945 in his service records, including the statutory form register and the pension form. One year prior to his superannuation, Respondent 1 claimed that his recorded date of birth was incorrect and sought correction to 15-7-1954, relying on his matriculation certificate. The employer declined to make the change. Respondent 1 then filed WP No. 215 of 2006 before the High Court, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. On appeal, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Ram Samujh Yadav v. Coal India Ltd. allowed the appeal and directed the employer to substitute the date of birth in all relevant records to 15-7-1954 instead of 1-7-1945. The employer filed the present appeal challenging the Division Bench’s order.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether an employee’s request to correct the date of birth in service records, raised only one year prior to superannuation, can be accepted when earlier opportunities to dispute such entries were not availed.
2. Whether the High Court’s Division Bench erred in directing correction of the date of birth decades after initial recording, in the absence of evidence that the employee had pursued the issue when given a specific opportunity in 1987.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent 1's Arguments

• It was submitted that the dispute over the date of birth had been raised in 1981. The court noted that this assertion was disputed.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court emphasized the timing and procedural history surrounding Respondent 1’s attempt to change his recorded date of birth. It noted that:

• The date of birth had been consistently recorded as 1945 (specifically 1-7-1945) in the form register (a statutory document) and in the pension form.
• In 1987, the employer provided an opportunity for employees to raise queries or disputes regarding their service records, including entries in the pension form. There was nothing on record to show that Respondent 1 availed himself of this opportunity to challenge his recorded date of birth.
• Respondent 1 raised the dispute only one year prior to his superannuation, which the court characterized as a belated challenge. On this basis, the employer and the learned Single Judge were justified in refusing to accept the requested change.
• As to the submission that the dispute had been raised in 1981, the court recorded that the fact was disputed and, in any event, did not find evidence undermining the 1987 non-action or the overall delay.

Given these considerations, the court concluded that the Division Bench committed a grave error in directing correction of the date of birth after many years, particularly when the employee had not acted earlier despite being given a specific opportunity. The decision turned on the belated nature of the claim and the absence of contemporaneous challenge when mechanisms for correction were available.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: APPEAL ALLOWED; DIVISION BENCH JUDGMENT SET ASIDE; SINGLE JUDGE’S ORDER RESTORED.

Implications: The employer is not required to correct Respondent 1’s date of birth in the service book, provident fund, or other records. The Division Bench’s direction to substitute 15-7-1954 for 1-7-1945 is nullified, and the recorded date of birth remains as previously entered. The order addresses the dispute between the parties and does not articulate broader legal principles or set new precedent beyond its application to the facts at hand.