C) @ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION No. 3470 /2005 ‘ ETITIONERasuI Ahemad, aged about 55 years, S/o Late Tajuddin, Mining Sardar, andupara CoHI’ely, R/o Pandupara Colliery, Dist. Korea Chhattisgarh 1 ChEf General Manager, The Sou Eastern Coal fields Limited, Ghilimilee Up—Schetra, Dist. Baikunthpur (C.G.) Dypt. General Manager, The South Eastern Coal ields Limited, Ghilimilee Up—Schetra, Dist. Baikunthpur (C.G.) PR P y” th 2 f f/ @D HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WRIT PETITIGN N0. 3470 OF 2005 RASUL AHEMAD VERSUS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, $.E.C.L. AND ANOTHER Shn' Gowri Shankar Singh, counsel for the petitioner, Shri RS. Koshy, counsel for the respondents on advance copy. O R D E R 29.07.2005 The following oral order has been passed by Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Shri Gowri Shankar Singh, counsel for the petitioner. Shri RS, Koshy, counsel for the respondents on advance copy. LA. No. 6578 of 2005: This is an application for urgent healing, The matter is taken up on Board. LA. No. 6578 of 2005 for urgent hearing stands disposed of. “LP. No. 3470 of 2005: Heard both the counsel for the parties. By way of this writ petih'on, filed under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality of iinpugned order dated 05.07. 2005 (Annexure—P/ 1) which in fact, is an order of superannuation of the petitioner which is to be effected on 31.07.2005 on account of completion of his age of superannuation treating his date of birth is 05.07. 1945. // V2, L€an1ad counsd for the petitioner submits that the date of birth shown in the impugned order as 05.07.1945 is not conect. Tho correct data of birth of the petitioner is 05.07.1950 and if calculau'ons are made on the basis of his correct date of biith, he Shall be entitled. for more services of about five years. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention towards the document Annexure-Pl2 which a representation given by the petitioner on 13.07.2005 stating his grievances to the management but the management has not decided the aforesaid representation so far and ultimately the petitioner has to retire on 3 lst July, 2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of actual date of birth of the petitioner, impugned order dated 05.07.2005 should be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 85 2 submits that in fact, the date of birth mentioned in the service lecord shall be the determining factor for the superannuation and the order passed by the management on 05.07.2005 is fully justified as the same is passed on the basis of service records of the petitioner. Admittedly, there is an Age Determination Committee with >r the establishment of the respondents and when disputes regarding the age of employees occur between the employees and the management, the matters are referred to the age determination committee and decision of the said committee is to be followed by the management. In the facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing counsel for both the parties, in the opinion of this Court, ends of justice would be served, if the matter is sent to the age determination committee, and the said committee is directed to take decision within the stipulated period and the management is directed to communicate the same to the petitioner for further action. It is hereby directed that respondent No. 1 shall refer the case of the peh'tioner to the age determination committee within a period of 15 days n‘om the date of production of certified copy of this order along with copy of writ petition before respondents taken by thC age determination committee. Needless to say that the decis disposed of. Certified cepy as per rules. VaH iv ion of the age determJhatian k i i \ Sd/- Suni! Kumar Sinha Judge >