In a significant legal development, the court overturned the employer’s decision regarding the determination of the appellant’s date of birth, crucial for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) benefits. The court’s detailed legal analysis highlighted the importance of accurate records for entitlements under the VRS scheme. The appellant’s challenge against the employer’s treatment of his date of birth showcases the court’s emphasis on proper examination of evidence in determining legal outcomes. This case sheds light on the meticulous legal scrutiny applied to ensure justice and entitlements for individuals in employment disputes.
Facts
- The appellant invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court but was unsuccessful before a Single Judge and Division Bench.
- The appellant’s plea against the rejection order was dismissed by a Single Judge on 24 November 2008.
- His appeal assailing the order of dismissal before a Division Bench also failed.
Also Read: Land Compensation Dispute: Legal Analysis
Arguments
- The appellant, represented by Mr. Kaushal Yadav, is challenging the employer’s decision to treat his date of birth as 21 September 1945.
- The appellant holds a Life Insurance Corporation (L.I.C.) Policy from May 1980 which shows his date of birth as 21 September 1949, indicating a discrepancy.
- If the employer had accepted the later date of birth, the appellant would have been entitled to higher financial benefits from the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) due to an extended service tenure.
- The VRS benefit computation is based on the tenure of service left, making the correct date of birth crucial for the appellant’s entitlement.
- The appellant is questioning the validity of the employer’s order based on his date of birth discrepancy, stating his date of birth as 21 September 1949.
Also Read: Legal Analysis: Exoneration in PMLA Case
Analysis
- The appellant’s failure to seek correction in the Form ‘B’ register could be condoned.
- The appellant had joined the organization in 1971 and the Form ‘B’ reflected his date of birth as 21 September 1945.
- Medical reports assessed his age to be closer to 1945 rather than 1949.
- His service book was filled in 1975, recording his date of birth as 21.9.1949.
- The standing orders did not designate the ‘B’ Form as the sole basis for determining date of birth.
- The appellant’s date of birth was consistently noted as 21 September 1949 in various official documents.
- The rejection of the date of birth correction request was based on a weak explanation from the employer.
- The appellant’s age discrepancy was noticed only after his voluntary retirement in 2002.
- The employer’s unilateral correction of the age entry in the service book lacked legal authority.
- The appellant’s complaint regarding his date of birth change after receiving VRS benefits was not belated.
- The employer’s reliance on Form ‘B’ register for the date of birth confirmation was questioned by the High Court in a similar case.
- The medical report assessed his age as 25 years, aligning more with 1945 as the birth year.
- The Division Bench held that there shall be a presumption of correctness with entries regarding date of birth made as far back as 1971 in the statutory Form ‘B’ register.
- Division Bench and Single Judge of the High Court did not properly appreciate the materials available
- The view taken by the Division Bench was deemed not possible
- The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside
- The materials relied upon by the appellant were completely ignored
- Sustaining the initial view would deprive the appellant of their legitimate benefits under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme
Also Read: Judicial Scrutiny of Bidding Process and Contractual Obligations
Decision
- The differential amount shall carry simple interest at the rate of seven percent (7%) per annum from 3 October 2002 to the date of actual payment.
- The appeal is allowed, and pending applications are disposed of with no order as to costs.
- The rejection order dated 13 October 2008 is quashed.
- The respondent no.1 erred in treating the appellant’s date of birth as 21 September 1945 instead of 21 September 1949.
- Benefits of VRS are to be extended to the appellant within four months after deducting the sum already paid.
- The respondents are directed to extend VRS benefits to the appellant with his corrected date of birth as 21 September 1949.
- The judgment of the Single Judge is set aside as a consequence.
Case Title: SHANKAR LAL Vs. HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD. (2022 INSC 449)
Case Number: C.A. No.-002858-002858 / 2022
