IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 134 of 2011 Ram Pal. ………. Appellant Versus THDC India Limited & another. ..………. Respondents Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the respondents. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. BARIN GHOSH, C. J. (Oral) Appellant was a class IV employee of the Irrigation Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh. In 1990, he was absorbed by THDC India Ltd. by order dated 29th May, 1989. At that time, the service record of the appellant was forwarded by the Irrigation Department to THDC India Ltd. While doing so, it was indicated that the date of birth of the appellant is 14th April, 1950. In such view of the matter, appellant became obliged to retire on 30th April, 2010. On 2nd April, 2010, appellant, in writing, requested THDC India Ltd. for conducting his medical examination for determination of his age. The reason for doing so was not indicated. In other words, appellant did not contend that his date of birth, as recorded, is incorrect. No dispute, therefore, cropped up. Accordingly, there was no question of adhering to the said request of the appellant. 2. In the writ petition filed by the appellant, he sought for a mandamus directing THDC India Ltd. to carry out such medical test on the ground that, in August, 2010, similarly situated persons, as that of the appellant, were medically examined for determination of their date of birth. The writ petition has been dismissed principally on the ground that a request for alteration of date of birth in the service record, at the fag end of the service period, is not entertainable. We approve the view, thus, expressed. In addition to that, we indicate that in the absence of a dispute inter se the employee and the employer, as the question of sorting out such dispute does not arise, taking recourse to determine age of the 2 employee by means of medical examination also does not arise. Appellant has not been able to make out a case that his case is identical to those, whose medical examination has been ordered by the employer. 3. The Appeal, thus, fails and the same is dismissed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.) 05.07.2011 05.07.2011 G