CW 5690/08 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5690/08 Shankar Lal Versus Hindustan Copper Limited & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 15/07/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Praveen Balwada, for petitioner *** Counsel submits that petitioner initially joined service as Miner on 22nd July, 1971 and while holding the post of Drifter Operator, he took voluntary retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme which was given effect to w.e.f. 3rd October, 2002. His date of birth as alleged is 21st September, 1949 which was recorded in his service book, but at a later point of time, without giving any opportunity of hearing to him and behind his back his date of birth was changed from 21st September, 1949 to 21st September, 1945 and thus, when he took retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme, this fact came to his notice about change in his date of birth which was given effect to by the respondents, certainly has caused prejudice to him. As per his date of birth which was 21st September, 1949 the balance service was of 5 yrs. 5 months & 29 days of which the monetary benefits were denied to him and at this stage he made representation which was duly examined by the committee constituted by the respondents and after due consideration of record with respect to date of birth anomalies the committee recommended on 7th September, 2004 to maintain his date of birth as 21st September, 1949. Counsel submits CW 5690/08 [2] that after recommendations were made, he made representation and also served legal notice to the respondents for making payment of balance service to which he became entitled for as per his date of birth which was recommended by the committee, but the same was not paid to him despite his best efforts. Without going into merits of the matter at this stage, this court considers it appropriate to direct the petitioner to make a fresh representation in the light of recommendations made by the committee with regard to his date of birth within a period of one month from today before the competent authority, who is directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of three months' thereafter. Copy of their decision be communicated to petitioner also. If still petitioner feels aggrieved by their decision, he will be free to avail remedy available to him under law. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA5690CW2008 15-7.doc