c§‘\f&// IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) 3mm Swan, WRIT PET NO. 1K E3 /2004 PETITIONE Udal, son of Nandram Suryavanshi, Timber Mistxy, T. No. 1962, R/o. Vivek Nagar Colony, Qtr No. M/353, PO K‘elauhari, P.S. Chachai, Tehsil — Anuppur, Distt. Shahdol (MR), Permanent address : Village — Pakaria, Post Office— Korabhat, Police Station — Shivrinarayan, Teh Pamgarh, Distt. Janjgir—Champa (C.G.)‘ VERSUS The Chairman~Cum—Ma_nagin Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) The General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sohagpur Area, Pos Office — hanpuri, Distt. Shahdol (MP) ’ The Manager / Superintendent of Mines, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bangwar Project, Sohagpur Area, PO — Bimouhari, P.S.—Dhanpuri, Tah. Anuppur, Distt. Shahdol (MP) The Chief Personnel Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sohagpur Area, PO Dhanpuri, P.S. Amlai, Tehsil—Sohagpur, Distt. Shahdol (Madhya Pradesh) R g t D HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 2119 of 2004 SB; Hon’ble Mr. Jus1icc Satish K. mikotri, J None for {he pet'dioner. None for the mspondents. ORDER ( 23rd August, 2006) of the Court is passed by Batish K. The following order Apihotri, J. had filed earlier one more petition, being W. P. 1. The petitioner No.1393 of 2003 in this Court with the submission that the on 31.3.1976. At the fime of mmal appointment of the petiu'oner at Chachai, District- Sahdol he had informed his date of birth as 4.4.1952. In theyear 2001 when the transferred from Chachai to Bangwar Project, at that time it was pointed out to him that in the service record his date of birth ie recorded as 1.4.1944, instead of 4.4.1952. When the petitioner came to know about this fact he made several lepresentations but the respondents had not corrected his date of birth. The petitioner prayed that his case for determination of the date of birth be sent to the Age Determination Committee, because as per the provisions contained petitioner was appointed petitioner was in Implementation instruction No. referred the 76 dated 25.4.1988 the respondents ought to have mattento the Age Determination Committee. Pefm'oner Udal Versus I Respondents The. Chairman-cum-Managing Dircctor, South Eastcm Coamdds Limitad and others. 2‘ In the said writ petition, the respondents had filed their mturn wherein it was mentioned that the date of birth of the petitioner, as given by him at the time of his appointment, was reconied in the sewice book. He wasvappointed on 315‘ March, 1976 to the post of Timber Man and at that time, he had given his age as 35 yeaIS as on 1.4. 1979 and aocording to his information his date of bitth was mcotded as 1.4.1944. At the time of initial appoinhnent the petitioner did not produce any educational cei tiiicate and on the contmiy he put his thumb impression over the selvice book thus showing himself to be illiterate. At the fag end of service when the petitioner had to mtire on 1.4.2004 he had raised the dispute about his date of birth with a View to get ten yeals extension of S6I‘V1C8. 3. This Court, vide order dated 15.3.2003 allowed Writ Petition No. 1393/ 2003 and directed the respondents to refer the matter of the petitioner to the Age Determination Committee for determination of age and to act according to the tinding of the Age Determination Committee. 4, The petitioner has hled this petition seeking a relief that the petitioner be examined by the State Govemment Medical Board, Sahdol or Bilaspur so that actual age of the petitioner can be ascertained, seeking almost the same relief as sought for in the earlier petition i.e. W.P.No. 1393/2003, which was considered and decided. 5. In the instant petition, the respondents in their reply have pointed out that pursuant to the order dated 15.3.2004 passed by this Court in W.P.No. 1393/2003, the petitioner was sent for examination by Apex Medical Board on 29.3.2004 and the members of the medical boani after careful examining the petih‘oner came to the categorical ending that the conect date of birth of the petitioner is as was entered in Form B Register i.e. 1.4. 1944. 6. It was further submitted by the Iespondents that in the case of G. M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. West Bengal Vs. Shib Kumar Dushad and others { (2000) 8 S.C.C. 696} it is clearly obselved by the Supreme Court that High Court should not interfere with the decision of the employer regarding correctness of date of birth as entered in the service record raised by the employee long after his joining the service and the employer decided the question following the pmcedme prescribed by statute, statutory rules or instructions, except in case of any arithmetical or typographical error apparent on the face of the record. 7. In the present case, pursuant to the order dated 15.3.2004, passed by this Court in W.P.No. 1393/2003, hled by the petitioner, the respondents have referred the matter to the Age Determination Committee and after examination of the petitioner by the Apex Medical Board on 29.3.2004, the Age Determination Committee has not found any change in the date of birth of the petitioner. . Having regard to the aforestated facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to permit the petitioner to raise the same dispute again in this petition which has been settled pursuant to the order dated 15.3.2004 passed in W.P.No. 1393/2003, by this Court. . in View of the foregoing, the petitibn is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sdl- , satish K. Agnihotri i 1 p Judge Thakur