^ r 1 ETT^ / IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) WRIT PETITION fS) N0. ^^ OF 2008 PETITIONER ^^ ...-w^^ -^ '5- RESPONDENTS ^"Ss! Sf-^t. ^s'~ ,^.,'s'^ "fl-^vr^."'^ y ^-S!.^¥'rS'^ {Sf %. ^^.•..^..^s''^ -. ''• *: \-s\^: ^vsS'^.{s-^t^ 'Ss | [&.l-.lll:i'°-"&i S pR|:''ljliy8.S^.? f ^'•€"1 'Dauram Chandra, S/o Shri Itwari Chandra, aged about 50 years, Driver, Balgi Project, Korba Area, S.E.C.L., Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) VERSUS 1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Seepat Road Bilaspur, Through: The ChaiFman cum lyianaging Director, S.E.C.L. Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2: The Director (Personnel) S.E.C.L. Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. The Deputy GeneFalManager, •South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Balgi Project, Balgi Colliery, Korba(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION QF LNDIA HiGHCOURTQRCHHATriSQAlRH:BiLASPUR Sinsie Beneh: Hon'bieShriiVi.anihdraMohanShrivasfava^J. MtRiTPETiTiON iS1N&.o697/2008 RETiIiONER RcSPONDENTS uauram unanura AfeFSUS SouttiiEasteraiiCSoalfieldsL.tu.andutheis resent: Shn.P.R^auu,'counsctfu^th®ij3Btiti'oi'ioi". •,.••''• ShnSuclhirBajpai.counselforWeirespondents. ORALORbE^ : • ;:,. ,: .:! . :::...'. (PassSfton 28ih dun®,2010) E This petition hasj been fiied by the pBiitioner ventilating gtievahce arising on the grounu ofaiieyeu inaiition "n tus^p^^ufi^pondentsinnotc date of birth or the petitioner eyen aner apgii^atiQB made tor such ®QrraiaiQnm accoroancewiUlimpiei'HentatiQninstruetjorT. . z. It is submitted that petitioner was initiaiiy^a in the vsar 1S77 wi'nie^GeRtinuii'ig^tn' s»vi(;&, n®cam®toi knowi that wrong date ;or Sirth •is memKOHea iWMjssep^G^l^^rdSKTnei'afi^gItos^^ffl "i^J' ^uiluwed by written appiieation statjngi corracted as 25/04/1958 m pis^'s^ ^^iS^S'^^Sa^ (^ s^v^^^s^a ceuificat^.iiissubmjttedthatresp<anaents^havajiaiddcwnapoiicy3bYi;wayiOf S'ia1ghis:N9ta'y:!bii'tfli:is''rsquire(ii;to: impiernentation instruction No>;?6 (AnnexuiS FV6) whicK appropnate cases, uate of b^rth inay[ t)e"<i0irected jn laceot^ance with proc^Lrre prescfibed i.iriuer°'ciause-B°sii1:is(suBmittedttra1: poticy ui consideratkin otcfaim oficoiT^i^n ^date|df i^ duty bound luGunsider^thsEaseofffi^p^tiHiNaBaisofiB^coTOancalwi iays 8own ;th^; iiaving laid yoiivijilthe iaisBfiUHMIIBiiCBWB itheir ana be in ttlfe ;'3re: •.tiw^^ -L.l. poiicy by referring the case of the petitipner to approprtate committee / age determination comrnittee. 3. On the otner hand, ieamed counsei for respQndents submits that this petition suffers from deiay and laches. It is sut»miUBdthat thougn the petltloner was appointed in the year 1977., for th® firsf time petitioner submitted representation on 14/08/2008 forcurrectionofhisuateofbirth. it is submitted 'that petitioner is not entitied to seeK coi-rection of his uate of hirth at the fag end of his seiyice, itjsfurtheiisubmittedthatthepetition involves highly disputed question of facts. The other suurnission pf leSFned counsel fof respDndentsis tnat in the statutory Form-Biregisfer, pstitionerendorseuunderhissiynatureihis dateofbirthas 11/02/1952. in addition, in the service sheetfregister and other service records aiso, theisaftieuate of, Birth has been entered. It is finaiiy submitted that the petitionfer has othenBis.e! | attemative efflfeacious reraedy of! approaGhinflth&LabourCourtuncterthepreivisionS oftheinuusu'iai DisputesAct.l 4. upon being inqyired, as lo whether the case of the peutioner was considerea On his representation, under tMe policy {Ani'iexure P/6), learnedl coynsei fbr respondents subnaitted that there is ny material un record t0 shovw that his case was considered. A perusai of impiementation jnsuuctiprfNo.7© (Annexure P/6) showsthatfhere i&a poiicy w reyiew^ deteiraination of date^^c^ birth contained iri "ciause B" of the'said policy. One®the poiicy has bBeri iaidl down, it has to ise uriifunnly foliowed. Qnce a representation )is made^seeking!! correction of date ofuirth, tMe same is requjred to bejeonsiuered ih accurdanegi with the poiicy (Annexure R?6) and the respQhdwits are obiiged to take ciecisipfii onewayortheotner. itwDtiidbeopenfurrespondientstorejectth8c!aimifjtisi jt :.:^ found upon inquiry that no case ror correction is made out. NeverU-ieiess, the petitioner is entitied to due consideration in accordance with implementation instructipn No.76 (Annexure P/6). Deiay in seeking correGtion, date or birth deciared in statutory Form-B registei and entries inservJcejBcords ete.wouid be matters for consjderation to taiie decision one way or the otHsr for respondents, while considering the case ofihe petiHoner according t6 Annexure P/6. 5. Accordingiy, respohdents are dinected to consider the case of the petitioner in accorciance with the pbiicy / impiernentation instruction No.76 (Annexure P/6) and take decision in accordance with iaw. With .the aforesaid observauohs, the petition isilrialiy disposed off. ——--—^- Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^. 'ti. ':1