Ito ^ ^?\^l^~ SIK^L£ bt:w'n IN THEHON'BLE HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH Af BILASPUR fC.G.1 W.P.fS1No...2^A£./20Q9 Ml PETITIONER: /' Sadre Alam ^ ^ •••'\y x ffM^ ^ C> Aged about 55 years, s^^ ^>^h^ ...<^ ^-y^ S/o Shri Gul Mohammad Gram- Ravi Nagar Colony, Jhimar Colliery District-Annuppur (M.P.) <^^ <^' i^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS: ^-i. Chief Managing Director South Eastern Coal Fields Limited , Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) ^? 2. Chief General Manager Hasdeo Area, South Eastern Coal Fields Limited, District- Koriya (Sarguja) (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITSOFMANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS:- 1. PARTICULARSOFTHE PETITIONER: y' ' As stated above in the cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OFTHERESPONDENTS: ^ ,"> Bl AFi{ HIQH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PBTITIONER Writ Petition (Sl No. 3696 of 2009 Sadre AIam VERSUS /"•'< -^ RESPONDBNTS : Chief Managiag Director, Soutb Eastem Coaffields Limited & another (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hoa'ble Mr. Satish K. Agaihotafi, J.) Shri Mateen Siddque, Advdcate for the petitioaer. ShnSudhu-KumarBajpayee, Advocate for the respondents. ORDERfOraU (Passed oa this 28th day ofjanuary, 2010) Heard. The petitioner, by fhis petition seeks a direction to the respondents to correcthis date ofbirth as on '1.1.1954', instead of'18.4.1950', in tfae service record and to retire him from. service, accordingly. The brief facts, in nutsheU, are that the petitioner was initiaUy appointed as Overmaa on 1.4.1973. At preseat the petftioner is workmg as Senior Overman at Rajn^ar Opencast Prpject, Aniiuppur. Prom the docuinent relatmg to service record (Annexure P/l) it.is apparentthatthe date ofbirth was recorded ason 18.4.1950. In the Sirdar's certificate (Annexure P/2) aad Ovennaa's Certificate (Aiuiexure P/3), issued under fhe Coal Miaes Regulations, 1957, by fhe Chairmaa of fhe Board of Mimns Examuiations, the date ofbirth ofthe petitioner was mentfoned as on l't Jaauaiy, 1954 (1.1.1954). la the Scholar's Register & Transfer Certificate (Aanexure P/4), issued by the Prmcipal, Shiv Prasad Narehi Higher Secondary School, Dihwa, District - BaUya (U.P.) the date of birth of the petitioner is xnentioned as on 1.1.1954. The petitioner subnutted vadous applications for correction of bis date of birth. (Annexiu-e P/S). Thereafter.byord.er ^s. ^ - m t_~]J—^-l'Ii"f^ •ii. 1 AK., ^. dated 7.3.2000 (AruiexureP/6) fhe Chief PersoaaL^tanager, Hasdeo Area directed fhe Sub Area Maa^er to take appropriate steps to settle fhe dispute in regard to fhe date of birth of fhe petitioner, Siace no action was taken by fhe concemed authorily, fhe petitioner agaia made varipusapplications (Aanexure P/7) and now, ttus writ petition. — Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that whenever any dispute arises regardirtg the date of birtti then the respondents are mider an obUgation to get the case of the coiicemed person examiaed from the Age Deteraiiuation Committee. In support of his subinissions leamed counsel rely on a decision of fhis Court in Itwari Vs. South Eastera Coalfleld Ltd. & others1. On the ofher hand, learaed counsel appearing for the respondents subnaits that fhere is no provision for refemag fhe inatter to fhe Age Deteraunation Coinnuttee on the basis ofthe school certificate, produced later on, not prior to the einployxnent. The petitioner was appoiated as General Mazdoor Categoiy ta RaTnnagar CoBieiy ori 1.4.1973.As per fhe petitioner's declaration lus date ofbirfh was registered in Form - B Register (Aanexyre R/l) as on '18.4.1950' and ttie same was accepted by the petitioner at tfae tirne of his employiaent. Likewise, ia fhe particulars of family (Annexure R/5), submitted by the petitioner on 26.5.1998, his date of birthwas nientiQned as on '18.4.1950'. Thus, ffae petitioiter is not entitled for aay reUef. The Implementation Instrucfioa No. 76 provides procedure for detenniaation/verification of age of eniplQyees. Clause (B) of Implementation Instruction No. 76 provides?Review Detemiiaation 1 2007 (3) C.aL.J. 452 y./ f^ ai i:] i:ii t>. of date of birth iu respect of existmg einployees, which reads fcs under: (B) Review detennio.atidn of date of birfh ia respect of existmj employees. i) a) In fhe case of the existing einployees Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the recognized Universities or Board or Middle Pass Certificate issued by the Board of Education and/or Department of PubUc lustruction aad adinit canis issued by the aforesaid Bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said Universities/Boards/Institutions prior to fhe date of employinent. i) b) Smularly, Miniug Sirdarship, Winding Engme or sinular ofher statutoiy certificates where the Manager had to certify the date ofbirth wiU be treated as autheutic. Provided that where bofh documents iiientioned iu (i) (a) aud (i) (b) above are available, the date of birth recorded ia (i) (a) will be treated as authentic. ii) Whei^ver there is no variation ia records, such cases wiU not be reopened unless there is a veiy glaring aad apparent wrong entay brought to the notice of the Manageiaent. The Maaageinent after being satisfied 011 fhe merits of fhe case wiU take appropriate action for correction through DetErmiaation Comiaittee/ Medical Board. In clause (B) i) b) of Implem.entati.on Instruction No. 76 it is provided fhat Mining Sirdarship, Wiadiag Engine or sinnlar ofher statutory certificates where fhe Manager had to certify fhe date of bu-fh wiU be treated as authentic. In tfae preseat case, adinittedly, the Sirdar's certificate (Annexure P/2) aad Ovenaaa's certificate (Annexure P/3), issued by the Chairaian of fhe Board of Mming Examinations, mentioning date of birfh of fhe petitioner as on 1.1.1954, which appears to be supported by the school certiScate \. (AnnexureP/4). y x Lg a II H fc'aia m R -"••a'N am A 7. 8. Tfaakur ^ Haviag heard learaed counsel appeariag for the parties aad having perused tfae pleadiags and documents appended thereto, it is a case where fhere is glaring variation in several documents laaiatained and issued by titie respondents/authorities. It appears to be a fit case which should be referrcd to the Age Detenninatioii Comnuttee for considering the case of fhe petitioner, having regard to aU fhe certificates aad docuiaents, as aforementioned. For tbe reasons mentioned hereia above, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to refer the dispute to the Age Determination Coiniaittee to consider aU fhe facts aad pass a reasoned oider with regard to the detenaination of fhe age of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably wifhin a period of three inonfhs fiom fhe date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order astocosts. ._^—^^.--,- Satish K. Agnihotri -^CS Judge i 'f' > -'i !•' Ss