^? l^ 8EN€ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDUCATURE AT BILASPUR fCG) WRIT PETITION (Sl No. ^3'? /2010 Petitioner / Rajdeo S/o Domari, Aged about 58 years, Rajnagar RO Hasdeo Area Dist: Annupur (MP) Versus Respondents ^/ / (1) M' 9 ^' ^ u/w\/ ^%r/ ->..^\y- .^<Ny ..^v ^'.^v ^^•' .^' ^ ...:A' o" C7 South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur(CG)-495006 (2) Chief General Manager, Hasdeo Area South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Dist: Koria Chhattisgarh ^(3) Sub Area Manager Rajnagar Sub-Area Hasdeo Area Dist: Annupur Madhya Pradesh Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India .^-?. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 397 of 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS Rajdeo South Eastern Coal Fietds Ltd. and others Shri Gary Mukhopadhyaya counsel for the petitioner. Dr. N.K. Shukla learned Sr. counsel with Shri Shailendra Shukla for the respondents. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (18.11.2011) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 28/31.3.2009 passedby the respondents determining the date of birth of the petitioner as 26.10.1948. 2. Case of the petitioner is that on 26.10.1979 he was appointed as General Mazdopr Category 1 in the SECL, Ramnagar Sub Area and in form B (Annexure P-3) his age has been mentioned as 28 years on the said date. His further case is that in the year 1982 he was transferred from Ramnagar Sub Area to Nori:h Jhagrakhand Colliery and while preparing the Last Pay Certificate his age has been mentioned as 31 years as on 26.10.1979. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of retirement in the year 2007, petitioner came to know about the incorrect entry made in his service record and then he made a representation (Annexure P-6) for correction of his date of birth. When the date of birth was not corrected, the petitioner filed WPS 5797/2008 before this Court and on 12.1.2009 the said petition was disposed of vide Annexure P-9 directing the respondents to refer the dispute with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner, to the Age Determination Committee. He submits that when the dispute was referred to the Age Determination Committee, it should have correctly —2-— determined the date of birth of the petitioner but while passing the impugned order (Annexure P-1) based on subsequent form - B his date of birth has been taken as 26.10.1948. He further submits that while passing the order impugned, Age Determination Committee has completely overlooked initial form - B of the petitioner in which his age has been recorded as 28 years as on 26.10.1979 and relying upon subsequent form - B his date of birth has been determined as 26.10.1948. He submits that when in the first form - B (Annexure P-3) his age has been shown as 28 years as on 26.10.1979 then his correct date of birth comes to 26.10.1951 but it has been wrongly determined as 26.10.1948 based on subsequent form - B which is normally prepared after transfer of the employee. He submits that it is a matter surprise as to how in subsequent form - B date of birth of the petitioner has come as 26.10.1948 whereas in the initial form - B there is no mention of the date of birth like this. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the Age Determination Committee has passed the order impugned under some misconceived notion. He further submits that the original form - B (Annexure P-3) is not disputed by the respondents. 4. On the other hand counsel fortherespondents submits that in subsequent form - B date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 26.10.1948 and therefore taking the said date of birth and the findings of the radiologist, the date of birth of the petitioner has been rightly determined as 26.10.1948. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. Pursuant to the direction given this Court, counsel for the respondents has produced the entire service record ofthe petitioner. From the said record it is clear that in form B (Annexure P-3) prepared at the time of initial appointment of the petitioner his age been shown as 28 years and nowhere his date of birth has been mentioned as 26.10.1948 or 26.10.1951. It appears that subsequent to the transfer of the petitioner some other form - B was prepared by the respondents in which all of a sudden date of birth of the petitioner has come as 26.10.1948. While passing the impugned order the Age Determination Committee has wrongly mentioned that form - B register shows the age of the petitioner as 31 years as on 26.10.1979 whereas as per form - B (Annexure P-3) the —s- age is apparently mentioned as 28 years as on 26.10.1979. It appears that original form - B of the petitioner has not been produced before the Age Determination Committee or if produced, the same has been completely ignored by it. It is not clear from the original record as to how in the subsequent form - B date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 26.10.1948 when the same was not mentioned in the earlier record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the order impugned dated 28/31.3.2009 passed by the respondents is hereby set aside. Respondents are directed to again refer the matter to the Age Determination Committee and place the entire original record including the document of Annexure P-3 before it. On this being done, the said committee shall decide the age of the petitioner in accordance with law. 8. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents may be directed to refer the matter to a newly constituted Age Determination Committee so that the possibility of any biased opinion may be avoided. This prayer is not opposed by the counsel for the respondents. 9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed to the extent that the respondents shall refer the matter again to the newly Age Determination Committee within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, which in turn shall pass appropriate order as per implementation instruction 76, within a further period of two months. Sd/- pritinker Diwaker judge