Age proof documents
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 18 January 2012
This query is : Resolved
1.What are the age proof documents acceptable legally in seriatum ?
2.What is status of records of "Parivar Register" issued by Panchayat secretary? Is it equivalent to Registrar Birth and Death?
Kindly provide Legal Article No etc for reference.
Deepak Nair
(Expert) 18 January 2012
If you are born after 1989, birth cirtificate shall be comulsarily produced as age proof. If not, then the school leaving certificate can be considered as age proof.
The panchayat have authority to issue birth certificate. If the birth is registered in the Panchayat, then the panchayat is the appropriate authority to issue birth certificate.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 18 January 2012
Certificate issued by the Office of Registrar of Birth & Death has legal sanctity and the Panchayat is not empowered to issue such certificates.
The certificate issued by Panchayat has no legal value.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 18 January 2012
# Deepak! Can you tel me the State wherein such right has been given to Panchayat and under which law?
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 18 January 2012
Birth certificate issued from the Parivar Register is very much valid. It is prevailing in many states.
for more info please refer:- UP Panchyat Raj (Maintenance of Family Registers) Rules.
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 18 January 2012
I agree, even in my work with banks, the said certificate from Panchayat was held valid in AP as well.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
Deepak Nair
(Expert) 18 January 2012
Dear Rajkumar Sir,
Here in Maharashtra, the birth and death certificates are issued by either the panchayat or the municipality as the case may be.
If the birth is registered in the panchayat within 1 month, then the Panchayat issues the certificate after due verification.
If anybody fails to register the birth of child within the eprescribed time then the father/mother of the child have to make an applicatino to the concerned Tahsildar (who are executive magistrates in Maharashtra)and the tahsildar after due verification and hearing will pass an order tot he Panchayat for issuing the birth certificate.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 19 January 2012
I have been corrected. Thanks for Deepak and Shroff.
Deepak Nair
(Expert) 19 January 2012
Yes. it is Mr.Arunagiri instead of Mr.Shroff
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 19 January 2012
IF BOTH OF YOU MISSED ME ON THIS QUERY, I AM SORRY.
I did not get time to view this query in last 20 hours hat it was posted.
i send you this judgement on "Conclusive proof of Age" that may interest all.
Jharkhand High Court
Krishnanandan Prasad vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And Ors. on 10 December, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2008 (2) JCR 315 Jhr
Author: N N Tiwari
Bench: N N Tiwari
ORDER
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.
1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Notification of his retirement contained in Letter No. BCCL/KB 5/6 Pits/Retire/06/2338 dated 1.7.2006 issued by the respondent No. 5 (Annexure-7) whereby the petitioner has been informed that he would retire from the Company's service w.e.f. 31.12.2006 on attaining the age of 60 years. The petitioner has also prayed for a mondamus commanding upon the respondents to allow him to work till 15.11.2011 when he would actually attain the age of 60 years.
2. The petitioner is an employee of the respondents-Bharat Coking Coal Limited (for short BCCL) working at KB 5/6 Pits Colliery P.B. Area as Mining Sirdar.
3. The petitioner was earlier appointed in the service of the colliery on 16.11.1971. Before his appointment in the colliery, the petitioner had passed Matriculation Examination from the Bihar School Examination Board in 1968. In the said certificate, his date of birth was recorded as 15.11.1951. The petitioner had produced the said Matriculation Certificate in proof of his date of birth at the time of his appointment.
4. While working in the department, the petitioner had appeared in the Board of Mining Examinations under the Director General of Mines (Safety). He was issued Gas Testing Certificate on 23.3.1977 (Annexure-2). In the said certificate also his date of birth has been recorded as 15.11.1951.
5. The petitioner had also appeared in Mining Sirdar Examination. In the Mining Sirdar Certificate issued to him under the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 (Annexure-3) on 14.12.1978 also, his date of birth has been recorded as 15.11.1951.
6. The petitioner's date of birth has been thus recorded ass 15.11.1951 in the Matriculation Certificate, as also in the aforessaid two statutory certificates granted during his service.
7. In the year 1987, a service excerpts was issued to the petitioner. There also his qualification has been recorded as Matriculation, but the date of birth mentioned in his Matriculation Certificate had not been mentioned in the service excerpts. Rather his date of birth was mentioned as 1.1.1947 and 25 years as on 15.10.1971.
8. The petitioner immediately protested and filed objection against the alteration of entry in his date of birth as 1.1.1947 and requested to correct the same according to the entries in service record as well as the Matriculation Certificate.
9. The respondents did not respond to the petitioner's objection/request.
10. After waiting for a long time, the petitioner filed representation before the Project Officer-respondent No. 5 on 9.4.1996 again requesting him to make necessary correction in the service records by correcting the date of birth according to the date of birth mentioned in the Matriculation Certificate. The petitioner has also annexed a copy of the Matriculation Certificate.
11. This time the respondent No. 5 sent the petitioner's Matriculation Certificate for verification and confirmation to the Bihar School Examination Board by Letter No. 4773 dated 6.5.2003.
12. The Bihar School Examination Board verified from the records and confirmed the correctness of the petitioner's Matriculation Certificate.
13. The petitioner was, thereafter, assured that his date of birth shall be corrected in the service records after necessary official formalities and the same will be communicated to him.
14. Suddenly the petitioner received a letter issued by the respondent No. 5 bearing Reference No. BCCL/KB 5/6 Pits/Retire/06/2338 dated 1.7.2006 whereby the petitioner was intimated that he would retire on 31.12.2006 on attaining the age of 60 years.
15. According to his actual date of birth, recorded in the Matriculation Certificate, the petitioner would attain the age of 60 years on 15.11.2011.
16. The petitioner, thus, protested against the same by filing a representation before the respondent No. 5 requesting him to make necessary correction in his date of birth which was also earlier verified and confirmed by the Bihar School Examination Board, but without any result.
17. The petitioner, thereafter, filed this writ petition. It has been submitted that according to the date of birth entered in the Matriculation Certificate as well as in two other statutory certificates as aforesaid, the petitioner would retire on 15.11.2011. The petitioner filed representations and produced the certificates long before, but the matter was kept pending by the respondents for several years and all of a sudden the respondents have issued the impugned notice for the petitioner's premature retirement.
18. It has been submitted that according to the provisions of Instruction No. 76 of National Coal Wage Agreement-(III), the date of birth of the exiting employees has to be determined on the basis of the Matriculation Certificate issued by the Board. The petitioner obtained the Matriculation Certificate before entering in the service and as such according to the said provision, the respondents are bound to accept the date of birth recorded in Matriculation Certificate and to make necessary correction in the service records.
19. It has been submitted that similar issue arose before this Court in the writ petition filed by one employee of the BCCL, namely, Kamta Pandey in W.P.(S) No. 1193/04. The said writ petition was heard and decided by a Full Bench of this Court upholding the earlier decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Awardh Singh v. BCCL wherein it has been held that "the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate duly authenticated by the Examination Board is a conclusive proof of age and no other records, including service records as both the parties are governed by Implementation Instruction No. 76 of National Coal Wage Agreement-III".
20. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents contesting the petitioner's claim and stating, inter alia, that the writ petition has been filed at the fag end of service and the same is not maintainable. It has been stated that the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 1.1.1947 in the statutory Form-B Register and the petitioner has accepted the said entry. He was thus, estopped from challenging the said entry made in the Form-B Register. It has been further stated that the Gas Testing Certificate as also the Mining Sirdar Certificate are not the valid proof for date of birth of an employee and the Form-B Register is a service record and shall prevail over the entry made in the Matriculation Certificate regarding the date of birth. It has been further stated that the petitioner has got other efficacious alternative remedy and this writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
21. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also perused and considered the materials and documents on record. The petitioner has brought on record the Matriculation Certificate as Annexure-1. On perusal of the said certificate, I find that his date of birth has been, recorded as 15.11.1951 in his Matriculation Certificate. In the Gas Testing Certificate as also in the Mining Sirdar Certificate the same date of birth Le. 15.11.1951 has been recorded. The petitioner had passed the Matriculation Examination in the year 1968 whereas he was appointed in the service of the respondents in the year 1971. The petitioner had, thus, acquired the Matriculation qualification before his appointment in the BCCL. In National Coal Wage Agreement-Ill in Implementation Instruction No. 76 which is binding on the employer and the employees of the BCCL, procedure has been provided for determination/verification of age of the employees. Implementation Instruction No. 76 reads as follows:
Implementation Instruction No. 76 Procedure of
Determination/Verification of Age of Employees
(A) Determination of the age at the time of appointment:
(I) Matriculates.
In the case of appointees who have passed Matriculation or equivalent examination, the date of birth recorded in the said certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances.
Clause (B) of Instruction No. 76 provides for review/determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees which reads as follows:
(B) Review/determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees.
(i)(a) In the case of the existing employees Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the recognized Universities or Board or Middle pass certificate issued by Board of Education and/or Department of Public Institution and Admit Cards issued by the above Boards should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said Universities/Board/Institutions prior to the date of employment.
22. The said instruction is binding on the respondent-Company. In the said instruction there is clear provision for review/determination of the date of birth recorded in the service records. The entry in the service record (Form-B Register), as contended by learned Counsel for the respondents, cannot be treated as final in view of the said provision for determination/review of the date of birth mentioned in the service records. The date of birth certificate issued by the recognized Board has been given precedence over any other documentary record. In view of the above, the stand of the respondents is contrary to the provisions contained in the Instruction No. 76 of the NCWA-III and the same is wholly unfounded.
23. Similarly controversy fell for consideration in the case of Kamta Pandey, (supra). A full Bench of this Court has held that the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate duly authenticated by the Education Board is a conclusive proof of age and no other records, including records as both the parties are governed by Implementation Instruction No. 76 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-III.
24. In the said Full Bench decision, the objection that the employees cannot be allowed to raise such, claim at the fag end of service, was overruled. In the instant case, the petitioner had protested against the wrong entry of his date of birth in the service excerpts long back in the year 1987 and had made several representations for correction, but the same was not heeded upon by the respondents. The Full Bench of this Court considered several decisions of the Supreme Court and concluded that if the Court is fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed and when a clear case, relating to the date of birth, is made out on the basis of clinching materials then necessary direction to make a declaration of the said date of birth can be given.
25. The case in hand is a clear case of incorrect entry of date of birth made in the service records. The said entry has been made contrary to the prescribed procedure. According to the provisions of Instruction No. 76 of NCWA-III, the petitioner has made out a clear case of review/determination of his date of birth on the basis of his Matriculation Certificate which is of the year 1968 and before his appointment in the year 1971. The said objection of the respondents, thus, has got no substance.
26. In view of the above discussions, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to make necessary correction in the entry made in the service records of the petitioner regarding his date of birth on the basis of his Matriculation Certificate in which his date of birth has been recorded as 15.11.1951. Since by the interim order dated 19.12.2006, the petitioner's retirement was kept in abeyance and he was allowed to continue, the respondents shall pass consequential order for payment of his salary/emoluments and other consequential benefits within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
There is no order as to costs
Deepak Nair
(Expert) 19 January 2012
Shroff Sir,
"Der Aaye par Durust Aaye"
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 19 January 2012
Mr. Makkad,
After the entry of MR.Shroff, Now your equation tally.
