EWWW WW. NO q g 23. m /O 200 L" mm (Waaw) Wwm WW1§WW $a~ifauana¥t PETITIONER Surajmal S/o Shri Dau Ram, aged about 53 ‘ years, R/c Domanhm Collierv, Post Sonavem, Chirmiri, Distt. Korea {(1% Versus RESPONDENTS l. Managing Director (Mahanideshak‘) Eas em Coalfields Limited Seepat. “v’ark (Ixarmik) Managing Director, Eastern Loaliields Ltd Seepat 4> WRIT PETITION UhvER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTUTION OF INDIA SB. HON SI-IRI DHIRENE RA MI3I-mA, J —--209n Shri Bharat Rajput, Advocate, for the petitioner. ‘ Shri RR. Sinha, Adv acate, for the respondents. The petitioner by 1he instant petition has prayed for quashing the order dated L 1-1-2004 (Annexure P— 1) whereby he h SEW WW v) P N“ \“I gZ@/é(7 mm W200 ‘mm(W) mm fg‘am WWW ‘A $mm has been communicated }hat he shali be retiring on 30—11- 2004. Learned couhsel for petitioner submits that according to the certiflcate of Annex e P-‘2, issued by Gram Panchayat, the date of birth of the peti ‘oner is 27-1'2— 195 1. Even the doctor has issued certificate of, V. xure P—3 on 14-8—2003 and the age of the petitioner is betwee 51 to 53 years. However, even after the above evidence was p oduced before the respondent, his prayer for referring his cas to the age determination committee for assessing his age, has On the other hand, d counsel for the respondents submits that in ail the been accepted t . evant records available With the respondents, entries in W h were made long back, the date of birth of the petitioner is ntioned as 1“ December, 1944. in statutory form B of Anne ure R—Z, Menials’ Service Register maintained by the Nation Coal Development Corporation Ltd. PS- 1 Option Form of Annexure R- of Annexure R-3, and in F o R b and R / the date o birth of the petitioner is mentioned as l 12 1Q44 ”he petiti er was served With his personal details available With the r cord of the respondents Vide memo nr‘A h}: nib:W mm-Fs/95—1 1 /2oox——i ,oo,ooo. x e e e l e O w p‘ Nouaza/Oéf ¢ mm amm (1mm) W v mzoo WWW mm£iwm wmm dated 22—8— 1987 of Annex e R-4, in which also, the date of birth of the petitioner was m ntioned as 1- 1'2- 1944, however the petitioner did not raise any bjection regarding the above entry /throughout his service carri r and raised the dispute only after the notice of retirement was ' Having heard leame regard to the documents m opinion that there is no meri The petition being w: dismissed and the same is a( rved. counsel for the parties, having ,d by the respondents, I am of the : in this petition. thout substance, deserves to be pcordinglv i dismissed MISHRA Judge Sdl— RA 31mm aimW manta;Fs/9s—1 1 /2oos—1 ,oo,ooo. x