The General Manager, M/S Barsua Iron Ore Mines vs The Vice President United Mines Mazdoor Union and Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

2 April 2024

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 4686 of 2024

Result

Allowed

Bench

Hima Kohli, Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Citation

[2024] 4 S.C.R. 63 : 2024 INSC 264

Issue for consideration

Respondent initially declared his date of birth as 27.12.1948. Later, in descriptive roll, he changed his initially recorded date of birth i.e. 27.12.1948 to 12.03.1955. Based on his declaration at the time of initial employment the Competent Authority of the appellant determined the date of birth of the respondent no.3 as 27.12.1948. The respondent no.3 superannuated from service based on his initially recorded date of birth [27.12.1948]. Whether the respondent no.3 is held to have been rightly retired in terms of his date of birth as 27.12.1948.

Headnote

Service Law – Superannuation – Discrepancy in date of birth – The CGIT passed its Award and held that the appellant’s determination of the respondent no.3’s date of birth based on the initial Descriptive Roll (27.12.1948) was unjustified and thus, awarded him 50% back wages from his retirement in 2008 until his supposed date of superannuation in 2015, based on the date of birth disclosed in the STC i.e., 12.03.1955 – Propriety:

Held: The disclosure of the originally-given date of birth (27.12.1948) by the respondent no.3 was a well-thought out plan hatched by him, at the relevant time – His conduct cannot be simply brushed aside on a plea that there was an error on the part of the appellant in recording his date of birth – Examined thus, the following is evincible: (a) the Competent Authority noticed discrepancy in the date of birth in the records of the appellant and, upon due scrutiny, opined that the declaration of date of birth made by the respondent no.3 at the first point of time, i.e., 27.12.1948, should be taken as his date of birth, as till 1998 no documentary proof was given, and; (b) the respondent no.3 would not have been able to legally come into employment on 27.12.1972, had he disclosed his date of birth as 12.03.1955 – No fault can be found with the appellant on this score – It is a just and reasonable conclusion by the appellant’s Competent Authority – The principles of estoppel would come into play in the present case – The respondent no.3, having stated on 27.12.1972, that his date of birth was 27.12.1948, cannot be permitted to raise the claim of his date of birth being 12.03.1955, that too on 14.08.1982, i.e., almost after a decade (counting from 27.12.1972 to 14.08.1982) – Even the STC was submitted after the appellant requested the respondent no.3 for documentary proof on 24.11.1998 – The respondent no.3 is held to have been rightly retired in terms of his date of birth reckoned as 27.12.1948 – The further direction to award 50% back wages to the respondent no.3 from the date he was retired till the (notional) superannuation on 31.03.2015, also stands set aside. [Paras 17 and 19]

Judgment Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. 2. Leave granted. 3. The present appeal arises out of the final judgment dated 04.02.2021 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned judgment”), passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) in Writ Petition (Civil) No.9424 of 2019, whereby the petition filed by the appellant was dismissed and the Award dated 24.01.2018 passed by the Central Government Indu

View Subscription Plans →