—;T •^ ..^ R!?'^^^''-^1 .;,^^ !N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR l9c>G WRIT PBTITION N0. OF 2005 PSTSTIONBR ^" vs RBSPONDBNTS ..^^ -»••*' ;..^^' ^ ^ PRAHLAD AADO, SON OF SHRI KALPU AADO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KHONGAPANI, DISTRICT KORIYA (CHHATTISGARH). •/ 1, SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD., THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, SEEPAT ROAD, BILASPUR [C.G.j ^2.THE PERSONNEL MANAGER (I.R), SECL, SEEPAT ROAD, BILASPUR [C.G.] ^3, THE MINE SUPERINTENDENT MANAGER, PALKIMORA MINES, DISTRICT KORIYA. WR!T PBT!TION UNDBR ARTICLE 227 86 226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR I8SUANCE OP AH APPROPRIATB WRIT IN THE NATURE OP MANDAMUS / CERTIORARI ETC OR DIRECTION{8) / ORDERISl IN THB UKE NATURE BT_C._ %:^ ^••'0 /^.s:?\ .%l&1 ^Tosr T<ii<iirt^,»Ti1<<-i<i<s,Rirtw^ ^f-J>^^ f^ *ii*i<ftia?Ti"^ ..^^==^ s^. ^200 3iT^^i vfs[cs (x3?rfg?Rs) 3n^^T^T^i<fr ^}3TT^$T3?WP ?;RTTWr ^rftcT 3TI^^T 13-5-2005 SharmibSinghd, c^ Shri PoS. Koshy, counse! •f| Heard both the counsei. The petitioner nas pref^ by the notice Annexure-P/l wh| that he witl be retiring on 31st ^ By thls petition he ha^ illiterate person even at the ti| P/2. He informed-the authori' years more and note to that cf\ no action taken by the iiliterate person could not pur^ representatlon (Annexure-P/3^ Apri!, 2005, but they are not P/t be quashed and the m Determination Committee^ In this connection, ie4 p lacing re I iance . on ;the Instri| that as per sub ciause IV of showing the age o1 the petitio|" <pt<<fo<RTi 4ii*ioV^ff^T^ xRi^'ci^ ^arf^rw^^T unsei for'the petitioner. ?|or the respondents. |rred this writ petition being' aggrieved ^reby the petitioner has been.informed |uly 2005 on attaining 60 years'Gge, ^ raise'd the grievance that he is an me' of fiiiing up of the forrri Annexure-0 ries that his age has been recorded 5 fect was appended on Annexure-P/2, but ^uthorities and the petitioner beln9 an tue the matter. Thereafter, he made a before the authority in the month of I'aking any action, therefore/ Annexure- {stter may ..be referred to. the 'ned counse! for the petitioner whiie ction No.76 (Annexure-P/4) submitted ^lause A where there VTOS no document ier and even at the time of appointrnent SP/FS/2005-20,000 ^wer^i'yirt«,yTti^^4, RlcM^^ *11H<*1 ^TT^ 3TT^^T9?rR^i<b ?r9TT3Ti^^T^Hi* .u Barve 3H^Wqg?F (^c||^<a<£{) ^200 ?WTWr^1tcT3T1^T -^' he ought to have been examin^ his age, but the not| referred to the Age Determin^t^ Learned counsei for res^ request rnade by iearned couns^ Haying heard learned co to the fa-cts and circumstarl di?"ected to 'refer the Determination Committee witH Age Determination Co.msnittee prescribed procedure and sencj by l^llui^iOOS. With the direction afor^ , Consequentiy, M.(W.)P. also stand disposed of. l Partjes are entitled for <pi<<Io41Ti +ii+wV^fi^^ xRii^i»< ^3I^T3H^$T ^d by the Doctor in order to-determine done, therefore, the matter should be 'ion Committee. |ondents has no objection to the iimited k! for the petjtioner. unse! for the parties and having regard lces of the case, respondent No,2 is of the petitioner before' the Age !in a period-of 10 days and in turn the shaii decide his age afte.r foliowing the the report to the concerned authority? said, thg petition stands disposed of. No.1498/2005 and I.A. No.3590/2005 ^ertified copy of this order\ Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge .L SP/FS/2005-20,000 ^^ -•• --- —- K •^