c^ \ -ZTZS 3^il' n-s 5" Jes~iK»-i •SEMwn IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Sl N0. / -l^ /2011 PETITIONER ^-^ >ea'"' «•'^5 A--' RESPONDENTS Mani Shankar Sahu, S/o. Late Shri Ranglal Sahu, Aged about 56 years, Occupation- General Mazdoor, Category-III (SLU) R/o. Charcha Collieiy, Subhash Nagar, Qtr.No. 133, Tahsil Baikunthpur, Distt. Koriya (C.G.). VERSUS 1. South Eastem Coalfields Limited, Through the Chairman -cum- Managing Director, Seepat Road, Basant Vihar, Bilaspur (C.G.). 2. The General Manager, S.E.C.L. Charcha West Colliery (R.O.) Baikunthpur Area, Distt. Koriya (C.G.) 3.^ The Sub Area Manager (R.O.) Charcha Colliery, S.E.C.L. Baikunthpur, Distt. Koriya (C.G.) 4. The Personnel Manager (R.O.) Charcha Colliery, S.E.C.L. Baikunthpur, Distt. Koriya (C.G.). te-1. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER As mentioned above in the cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS --. As mentioned above in the cause title. <fc u.il...,..-. ^o HKffi CQU@CTGHHATnSGARH ATBILASPUR PETmONER WKTT PETmON (S) No. 752 of2011 Mani Shankar Sahu. RESPONDENTS VERSU8 South Eastem Coalfields Limited & Others. WRTT PE'rmON UNDER AR1ICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri. J. Present: Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDERrORAL) (Passed on Q8U1 day of February, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing offhe notiee dated 04.12.2010 (Aimexure P/4) and further, a directicm to tfae respondent authorities to correct the date ofbirth oftbe petitioner in the service record and to permit tfae petitioner to continue in service till the actual date ofhis superannuatian. 2. Shri Shukla, leamed counsel appearing for fhe petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on tfae post rf Loader with the respondent authorities on 01.09.1981. The age of superannuation prescribed is 60 years. The petitioner was issued a notice ofretirement on 04.12.2010 (Annexure P/4) wherein it was stated that the pditioner shall retire on 30.04.2011 on attaming fhe age of 60 yeais. The petitioner came to know very late that his date of birth was wrcmgly recorded as 01.05.1951 in the service book whereas, his actual date of birth is 01.07.1954. Thus, the petitioner made a representatioa to the respondent authorities on 22.11.2010 (Amiesaire P/5) but notinng has been done till date. Shri Shukla further submits that iu support afhis case, the petitioner has submitted a second copy of the School Transfer Certificate, issued by the Primary School, Talwapara, wherein the date ofbirth ofthe petitioner is mentioned^as 01. 1954. Thus, tfae authorities ought to have corrected his date of birtfa, accordmgly. 3. Heard leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. ' '„'''^'•s^^.. ^^ ^?%^^t, '^*^u:^^ -f--"^ 4. The petitioner has not pleaded anything in this petition asto how the petitioner was ignorant about the vwong entry wifh regard to his date of birth in the serviee book for such a long period. At the fag end of his service career, when the impugned notice was issued with regard to his superannuation, the petitioner woke up from slumber and has approached the authorities by way ofrepresentation to correct his date ofbirth in the serrice record. Further, the petitioner has not given auy documentary evidence in support of his case and has only filed a second copy of Ifae school leaving eertificate which was issued reeently, i.e. on 18.11.2010 which cannot be relied upon. The petitioner has not filed any other educati<aial testimomal wherein his date ofbirth is shown as 01.07.1954. Thus, at this stage, no reliefcan be granted to the petitioner. 5. The identical issue came up for ccusideration before this Court in Benudhar Prcidhan v. The State ofChhattisgarh^,vAterem'&dsCwiTt observed as under: "13. In tfae matter of correction in the date of birth, the consistent view of Hon'ble Supreme Court is that correctiofl ia entries made in govemment records on the basis of which the govemment servant got the service cannot be allowed to be changed Just a few years before retirement or at the fag end ofhis retirement. It is well settled tiiat an employee wll not be permitted to apply for change of date of birth at the tag end of his service career and in any case tiie High Court ou^it not to have exercised its vwit jurisdiction to detennine the real date of birth. (See U.P.Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and Others v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri and Coal India Ltd. and Another v. Ardhendu Bikas Bhattacharjee and Othens)." 6. Applying the well settled principles oflaw to the faets ofthe case on hand, the writ petition fails and is hereby disnrissed. No ardar asto costs. _ _—-- Sd/- • . Satish K.Agnihotn Judge Amit * W.P. No, 536/2004, decided on 18.01.2010