?1/4“ ’ ;m i\\ (n :3Nrit Appeal under Section 2 (1 to Division Bench) Act, 2006) Divisicn Bench: Hon. Shti Dhirendra Mishra & Han. shri Dim; Raosaheb Desi 6~12-2G$8:- *\\\§hri Arun—Kumar Agrawal, Wazid Aii; S10 Abdui Razaqge, aged about 6:3 years‘ Rio ‘15 Bzock Ccbny, S.E.C.L., Korba, Tah.~and DiStrici Korba (CG) -‘\f.ersus‘- South Eastern Coai Field Limited Through its Chairman cum Managing Director, S.EJC.L., Korba Director S.E.C.L., Korba ‘Headquaiter at Seepat Road‘ Biiaspur, Tah. and Distt. Biiaspur (CG) Dy. General Manager, Manlkpur Colliery of Korba Area, South Eastern Coalfieids Limited, Korba Tah. and Distt. Korba The Age Determination Committee, S.E.C.L. Korba Through its Chairman/Presiding Officer, S.E.C.L. Korba, Tah. and Distt. Korba l of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal Wi- counsel for the appeiiani. [111% Wt APPELLANT: PETiTiONER QE$PONDENTS1 Heard on admission. This writ appeal §s dire acted against the iudgment dated 11m September, 2008 passed in Writ Petition No.4182l2006 whereby the petition foi’ quashing the order Age Determination Committee retire the petitioner before 1-1- (108 with all consequential benefite was dismissed. Eariiei Writ Petition No. 266/2002 was disgaosed ef vide order dated 6th Febtuary, 20% wit a direction to the Age Determination Committee to examine the di pute with regard to date of birth of the ion Committee by the impugned order the petitioner shown in Form—B of the and needs no modification. Shri Arun Kumarr Agra Jai teamed counsel appearing for the of the document re Form-B egister it would he evrdent that it is a the identify card prepared by the parent company has been wrongly d dated -4‘h«6“‘ May‘ 2006 passed by the nd for direction t0 the respondente not to petitioner. The Age Determi hetd that the date of birth of service record is just and prope tition on the oround that on bare perusai appetiant has t" ed the instant p ents Le. Sohooi Leavrng Cennfoate and concocted document; the docu isbelieved and the proce ding before the Age Determination Committee has not been prod ced despite several directions by learned Singie Judge for the same. [die Wt t n We hav heard learne cunsel for the appekéat and ave perused th impugned judgmen as atso pieading of the arties before learned Single Judge and the doments anexed ith the pieadings. Learned Sing!e Jndge diissed the petition en foiiowing sm the gro- unds: . Form-B reier filldv t he time of appointme ntions the date f birth of the petitneras 1-7-42 and he same is duty signed by the petitoner. 2. Reliance of the petitione n Nirgam Certificate issued on 29- 2- 0 an the identity card isued b the erstwhii private employer wherein the date of birth f the petitioner is shewn as 2-1-47 re L me were not roduce either at the 5-1 980 or tereafter tilt the retiremnt doubtfui documents, as time of pointent on of the petitioner. 3. Form-3 register is the in part of service record wherein the » date of birth is menti s 1-7-42 4. The petitioner d not e any representation before the order of retirement dated 3-2- 2. Reterring to various iud nts of the Hon’bie supreme Court, it as been held tat he dis rerding chane of ate of birth rorded in For-8 f the se record cannot be aised on the eve of Aec m o rvi e r [‘n’é‘t Wt e d o ' n h e t} p w n w 1 gst e a t nt me o io t ' i r o 1 9 d tt y e h a sa pd - h e apm 2 t a oned a . id m k 2 0 g a h h t p e ga g d \ retirement and the date of b§rth Fecorded in Form-B o the service record is conclusive and fmal. After going through the impugned judgment and the materia! availabte on record of Writ Petition No.1266i2002, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment is based On material available on record ' and settied principles of law; There is no substance in the appeai, the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingiy dis nissed at the admisWi\\ H41 ._._I mg. vxmm...‘ zwwzW f ' Sd/. Jr Sdl- t E Dhirendra Mishra l Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Ban/e ts Judge Judge [11% WI