v -s — ^ HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH, BILASPGR ^itPrtitloa (SLNo._4e64^2007 •'^SB'iS.^^^j^ PETITIONER RESPONDBNTS 2. Kailasb Dubev, s;'o Prithvi Dubey, aged about 54 years, worldiig as School Bus Khalasi, Bishrampur Area, S.E.C.L. Distt. Surguja (C.G.). Vsrssis S.E.C.L. through its Chairman- cuin-Maaaging Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G). Chief Qeneral Manager, S.E.C.L., Bislu-anipur Area, District Surguja (C.G). WRIT PETITION UNDiBR ARTICLE 226 OF THE CON8TITUTIOM OF IMDIA Appearance: Shri S.N. Prasad, leamed coiinsel for fhe petitioner. Shri R. R. Siaha, counsel for the respondents. (11.12.2007) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J Heard finally with the consent of the parties. The petitioner, who was worlriag on the post of Bus Khalasi ia Bishrampur arca of S.E.C.L. tias filed this writ petition on 30.7.2007 for removing the wrong entry ofdate ofbirth recorded ia of&cial records as also for refemng his case to fhe age determination committee as per Implementation Instruction No.76 dated 25.4.1988 (hereinafter referred to as 1.1. 76). Leanied couusel for the petitioner submits that correct date of birth ofthe petitioner is 26.11.1952 whereas a wrong entry as 26.11.1947 has been made in the service records offhe petitioner. He submits fbat when the petitioner came to kuow about aU fhis, he made various reuresentations vide Aimexure P-2. P-3, P-4 & P- 5; Atmexure P-2 was filed on 20.1.1995, Aunexure P-3 was ffled on 25.1.1996, Annexure P-4 was filed on 30.3.1998 aud Aanexure P-5 was filed on 18.4.2001, but no action was teken toy fhe eniolover to ruake correction iu service records of the petitioner W.P.(S)No.4664/2007 pertamiag to his date of btrth, therefore, petitioaer bad to file this writ petition. He submits that duriug fhe peudency of this writ petition, treatuig fhe date ofbirth offhe petitioner as 26.11.1947, fhe petltioner has been superaiuiuated on 30th of Noveinber, 2007. He prays for referrmg the case of fhe petitioner to the age determmation coinmittee as per 1.1.76. On fhe ofher haad, leamed counsel for the respoiidents ai^ues that the ruatter for correction of date of birth caanot be agitated at fhe fag end of service. He also argues fhat siace fhe petitioner has ah-eady retired on 30til of November, 2007, therefore, uow fhe petition has become infructuous and this Court caunot issue aay writ or direction in tliis writ petition. I tiave heard leanred counsel for the petitioner at length and have also perused fhe records offhe writ peUtion. Annexure P-6 is the document issued by fhe coacemed iustitution where fhe petitioner had studied aad in fhis document, fhe date of birth has been mentioned as 26.11.1952. Ttiis docuinent is of the year 1967. Pruna lacie, on the basis of contents of fhis document, tfae date of birth of the petitioner appears to be 26.11.1952 whereas his date of birth has been entered as 26.11.1947 iu aU his service records aud when fhis fact came to notice offhe petitioner, he started agitating the same siuce the year 1995 by filing representations vide Aimexure P-2, P-3, P-4 aad P-5. The last representation Amiexure P-5 was filed by fhe petitioner on 18.4.2001. Therefore, the objection raised by leamed counsel for fhe respondeut that fhe petitioner has raised- this matter at the fag end of his service career cannot be sustained. In fact fhe petitioaer has raised this inatter siuce the year 1995 as is clear from Aunexure P-2 aud tbe authorities of the S.E.C.L., did not respond to fhe representations and ultimatety, his matter was kept iu abeyaace. So far as fhe other argument regardiag petition beiag iufructuous is conceraed, admittedly, this petition was filed on 30.7.2007 when the petitioner was workiag on the post of Bus Khalasi aad he has been superaruiuated on 30.11.2007 holding his date ofbirth as 26.11.1947 during the pendency of this writ ^-w°y\^ f &.^ l % i 1 <S '—"t'SI W.P.(S)No.4664/2007 ^i petition. Therefore, the case of fhe petitioner would be govcmed by fhe provisious of 1.1.76 which provides for Review/ detenniaation of date of birth iu respect of existiug eiaployees because the day on whlch this petition was ffled, the petitioner was working. The o^- ?^^ status of the petitioner was,aa existmg einployee aad wifhia fhe scope of 1.1.76, his case can be referred for determination to the suitable Conunittee as per the aforesaid uistructions. In fhe result, fhis petition is atlowed. The respondents are directed to refer the case of petitioner to the age detennination coinmittee withia a period of 3 weeks from the date of filing of certt&ed copy of fhis order before fhe concemed respondeats. They are further directed to receive the report of age detennination coiunuttee withia a further period of two inontlis froni the date of reference inade by thein. With the above direction, fhis petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. ^L Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge /Rao/