Susanta Chatterji, J.@mdashThe present petition has been filed by one Jagir Singh praying, inter alia, for a Writ of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to cancel the Service Excerpt Form and the notice of superannuation and to forbear the Respondents from interfering with the service of the Petitioner and to grant other consequential reliefs.
2. It is stated in the petition that the Petitioner entered into the service of the then management of Loafna Coal Co. Ltd. as leader on June 6, 1962. In the year 1973 the aforesaid Bengal Coal Co. was nationalised and the Petitioner''s service was ultimately transferred to the Respondent Eastern Coalfields Ltd. It is further stated that as per the prevailing practice, the Petitioner declared the date of birth as August 2, 1942, and the said year of birth was accepted and recorded in the service book, Identity Card and in the Provident Fund Records. It is alleged that the age of every workman as recorded in the Form ''B'' Register is also marked in his Identity Card. ''The Petitioner''s date of birth was duly recorded in Form ''B'' Register and Coal Mines Provident Fund Register" and in all other relevant registers. In the year 1987 the Petitioner was asked to verify the service excerpts form prepared by the management on the basis of the documents as available and the Petitioner found that, the date of birth was mentioned as 1932. The Petitioner forgot to raise any objection and submitted the said excerpts form, and the copy of the service excerpts is annexed and marked as Annex. ''B'' to the writ petition. The Petitioner further made a representation before the authority concerned to correct the date of birth and the said representation has not been considered. Ultimately, the Petitioner received the notice of superannuation, and being aggrieved thereby he has come to this Court challenging the notice of superannuation.
3. Mr. P. K. Chatterjee, appearing for the Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Implementation Instruction No. 76 regarding the procedure for determination/verification of the age of the employees. Clause (iv) of the said Instruction, 1976, provides, inter alia, that in the cases of appointees not covered under the foregoing clauses, the date of birth will be determined by the Colliery Medical Officer keeping in view any documentary and other relevant evidence as produced by the appointee. Date of birth as determined shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered "under any circumstances. Mr. Chatterjee has highlighted that in terms of the instruction the age of the Petitioner should be corrected by the Age Determination Committee or his case should be referred to the Colliery Medical Board.
4. The writ petition is seriously opposed by the Respondent authorities by producing the records. Mr. Tapan Kumar Roy, learned Advocate! appearing for the Respondent authorities, submits that in the official records the Petitioner''s date of birth had been properly recorded and the Petitioner has not made any grievance at any material point of time. Time to time he was transferred and in Provident Fund record and E.S.I, record there is mention of his date of birth and the Petitioner accepted the same without any objection. After issuance of the notice of superannuation the Petitioner made an appeal, copy of which is Annex. ''D'' to the writ petition and/or has no merit at all.
5. Having heard Mr. Chatterjee for the Petitioner and Mr. Roy for the Respondent authorities it appears that the Petitioner has essentially raised a disputed question of fact. According to him, the date of birth as recorded in the official records of the Respondent is not correct. He has not referred to any other documents regarding his age. On the other hand, he asked for referring the case to Age Determination Committee and/or Apex Medical Board. Since there is no other document filed by the Petitioner before this Court there is no question of referring his case to Age Determination Committee. It does not arise as a matter of course. It his to be seen whether the Petitioner can ask for referring his case to the Apex Medical Board for ascertaining his age. The attention of the Court has been drawn to a recent judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of NTC (WBABO) Ltd. and Ors. v. Sudhanva Biswas and Anr. Civil Appeals Nos. 3444-3446 of 1990 arising out of SLP No. 8347 of 1989 & SLP Nos. 3650, 8308 of 1989 (S.C.) The Supreme Court held, inter alia, that the order of the High Court directing examination of the workmen by the Medical Board for determining the age cannot -be sustained and is set aside. It was, however, directed that the High Court can determine the age on the basis of available records and may afford an opportunity to parties to produce further materials. Before this Court the Petitioner has not referred anything besides his identity card and the copy of appeal made after receiving the notice of superannuation. The records produced by the Respondent authorities clearly prove, inter alia, that there is nothing to dispute and/or doubt the age recorded by the Respondents and it was accepted at all material points of time. It is argued strongly on behalf of the Respondents that the writ Court is not the proper forum to entertain any disputed question of fact and the Petitioner should go in a properly constituted civil suit to ventilate his grievances. Mr. Chatterjee, on the other hand, contended that the writ Court could consider the scope of this in view of the instructions, and can direct the Respondents to refer the case of the Petitioner to the Apex Medical Board for ascertaining the age.
6. With great anxieties this Court has considered the matter in depth. The writ Court is generally not entertaining any petition to decide any disputed question of fact by entertaining evidences. If on the basis of the materials so disclosed there is no dispute as to entry and on the basis of the affidavit if the matter can be adjudicated, this Court can grant relief by applying the principles of natural justice and by appreciating the principles of equity. Here, in the instant case, the Petitioner after receiving notice of superannuation, has come to this Court to seek remedies which neither flows from the instructions nor fortified with the materials on record. It is further brought to the notice of the Court that a large number of petitions are filed by challenging the superannuation after the notices are served and the aid of the writ Court is obtained to get a direction to refer the matter to the Apex Medical Board to create unnecessary complications and to create an utter confusion. The writ Court is not sitting as the Court to affix a stamp to refer the cases to the Medical Board as desired by the Petitioner without examining the merit of the case in the proper perspective. This Court having gone through the materials on record does not find it a fit case to be referred to the Medical Board and there is nothing contrary to nor inconsistent with the materials on record regarding the age of the Petitioner maintained by the Respondent authorities. The petition appears to be thoroughly misconceived and without any merit.
7. Incidentally, this Court finds that at the time of filing of the writ petition in the Original Side of this Court the affidavit has been sworn by the Petitioner and there is nothing about his signature nor there is any left thumb impression. It is submitted that under Original Side rules and by age-old practice and convention the Interpreting Officer can explain, and verify the contents of the petition to the deponent. It is not appreciated by this Court that without identification of the Petitioner how an Interpreting Officer would explain and verify. The concerned Interpreting Officer was called and along with him the officer concerned tried to explain to this Court that under the Original Side practice the deponent is generally produced by the clerk of. the Solicitor or the Advocate and on good faith they make an endorsement as to ''verify and explain''. In the present case there is no endorsement that the deponent was identified either by the learned Advocate or by his clerk. The identity of the deponent remains in dark. Any practice however old, if it is healthy should be continued. Any practice even may be old, if not otherwise healthy, should be deprecated. There is a change of circumstance and the suspicion is all around and in order to avoid unnecessary complications while explaining the contents of the petition, the Interpreting Officer should see that the deponent is properly identified and/or verified by the authorised representative of the Solicitor or the Advocate who is entitled to practice in the Original Side.
8. With all these observations, the writ petition is rejected. No order as to costs.
9. Registrar, O.S. Department and all parties to act on a signed copy of the operative part of this dictated judgment on the usual undertaking.
