SIHGLE BEMCH (^ INjrHE^HIGILCQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S ) No. ^\G [2009 PETITIONER .a^-<^1 <?^^wii£-' ^.;86' >.A3<1-'"- ^.'-- : Kalawati Bai, W/o Late Chinta Ram, aged about 50 years, .._;--^ pty ^ ' .." „ . Occupation-Service in S.E.C.L., .-••"~ R/o Bishrampur, P.S. Jainagar, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. Chief Managing Director S.E.C.L. Sepat Road Bilaspur, (C.G.). 2. Chief General Manager .S.E.C.L. Bishrampur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.). 3. Personal Officer S.E.C.L. Bishrampur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.). , 4. Sub Area Manager S.E.C.L. Bishrampur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETn<IOME& ftS! MIB .^€aa^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 4816 of2009 PETITiONER Kalawati Bai RESPONDENTS VERSUS Chief Managing Director SECL, Bilaspur and others Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, counsel for the petitioner. Shri H.B. Agrawal learned Sr. counsel with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, Advocate for respondent No.2. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (17.10.2011) Grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that though her correct date of birth is 16.11.1961, taking the same wrongly as 16.11.1951 a > decision has been taken to retire her on 30.11.2011. According to the petitioner, after the death of her husband namely Chinta Ram she was given compassionate appointment in grade III and in the service book (Annexure P-1) her date of birth is mentioned as 16.11.1961 which subsequently after being erased has been made as 16.11.1951 for the reasons best known to the authority concerned. Petitioner has filed document ofAnnexure P-2 relating to Coal Mines Provident Fund in which also her date of birth is mentioned as 16.11.1961. Another document of Annexure P-3 filed by the petitioner in relation to Coal Mines Family Pension Scheme, 1971 also mentions her date of birth as 16.11.1961. According to the petitioner, after the death of her husband on 21.2.1987 she filed an affidavit before the SECL authorities categorically stating her age as 25'years. Petitioner has further filed document of Annexure P-5 in respect of her father Mohan Ram Sahu in which his date of birth is recorded as 5.6.1944. Similarly, GPF account of the father of the petitioner also shows his date of birth as 5.6.1944. ;tiil a«'"-i t. ^ '-c? 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that when date of birth of her father is 5.6.1944, by no stretch of imagination her own date of birth can be 16.11.1951. He submits that in the document ofAnnexure P-6 i.e. the LIC policy of the petitioner, her date of birth is recorded as 16.11.1961 and likewise her PAN card also carries her date of birth as 16.11.1961. He submits that from the very beginning the petitioner had been approaching the respondents making representation after representation (collectively filed as Annexure P-7) yet they have not been paid any heed as a result of which her date of birth remains uncorrected. He submits that on 4.7.2007 vide Annexure P-8 she made a request for verification of her age by way of medical examination but still the same was not forwarded to the higher authorities and ultimately by order dated 10.7.2007 this request of the petitioner came to be rejected by Dy. Chief Personnel Manager, Bishrampur Area. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the purpose of filing this petition would be served if the matter is referred to Age Determination Committee formed as per the Implementation Instruction 76 of the National Coal Wage Agreement. 3. Counsel for the respondent submits that date of birth of the petitioner is correctly recorded as 16.11.1951 as per the medical certificate and that being so no interference in the same is called for. 4. Considering the facts and drcumstances of the case and the documents filed by the petitioner in respect of her age and that of her father, this Court feels it just and proper to refer the case to the Age Determination Committee for determination of the correct age of the petitioner as per the Implementation Instruction 76 of the National Coal Wage Agreement. 5. As a result, the petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Respondent-SECL is directed to refer the dispute witfci regard to date of birth ofthe petitioner to the Age Determination Committee within a period of four weeks from today and the said committee, in turn, shall consider and decide the same on its own merits, in accordance with law within a further period of three months after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. ^^ 6. Needless to say that in case the Age Determination Committee passes an order in favour of the petitioner; she would be entitled for all the consequential benefits. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge !1