COURT OF JU&ICATURE. CHHATTIS^RH AT PETITZONCTf. Writ Petitton No.2564 ef 2003 Bhoreia! S/o Sri Amar Sd, aged about 56 years, Cat V Machinist, Rsgional Workshop, Korea (C.6.) -Versus- RESPONDENTSs 1. M/s South Eastern Coai Fields Limited, Through, The ChQirman Cum MQneging Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur. 2. &y. Chlcf Englneer (E & M) Reglonal Workshop, Korea, Chlrmiri Area, bist. Korea (C.G.). POST F06 ON 5th DECEMBEft. 2003 Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ^ COURT OF JU&ICAWRE. CHHATTIS^RH AT BZLASPU^ Wrst Petitlon No.2564 of 2003 PETETIONER: Bhoretel S/o Sri Arrsar Sd, aged obout 56 years, Cat V Machinist, Regional Workshop, Korea (C.0.) -Versus- RESPONDENTS: 1. M/s South Eastern Cod Pields Llmited, Tliroiyh, The ChQirmQn Cum Mcsncging Director, Seepat Road, Btlaspur. Dy. Chief Engineer (E & M5 Regional Wark^iop, Korea/ Ghirmiri Area, Dist. Korea (C.5.5. Petitloner by Smt. Meena Shastri, Advocate. Respondents by Shri P. S. Ndr, Senior Advocate with Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate. Befors: Hon'bte Shn L.C. Shadoo. J. OR&ER (Passsd on^^&ecember, 2003} 1. The petitioner who is working as a Cot. V. Mcichinist under the control of the respondents has preferred this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, chalicngirig thc order Ex.P/10, retiring the petitioner w.e.f. 30 Scptember 2003 con^idering date of birth of the petitsoner o^ 4.9.1943. 2. Jhc petitioner's case is that he was appointed as lob^ur on 1J.1977. In the yesr 1987 a letter carryir^ detdls of thc service i/yas issued to thc petition€r directing him to flll up vacant coiumns and thcreafter to the back to the department. A copy of the SQme is enclosed as Annexure P/l. According to the column No. 6(1) the date of bir'th of the petitioner is ^ 1.2.1947. The petitioner compicted his pniunary education In the yecr 1960;a certifjcote to this effect is Annexure P/2. In the yeor 1963 the pctitioner compieted his middje education, certificotes to this effect are Annexure P/3 and P/4. In certificotes the of blrth of the petitioner is as 1.2.1947. Tnc p€titioner also received trainlng in Industriai Institute, AmbikQpur from February 1965 to Juiy 1966 and a certlficote Annexure P/5 is^ued in whlch the dote of birth of the petltioner is mentioned ss 1.2.1947. 3. The petitloncr made a representotion on 7.11.1991 before the competent authority for correctlon of the wrong date of birth. A copy of the is Annexure P/6. Agdn on 21.8.1998 he made a reprcsentation for correction of dote of birth but no positlve steps taken by the management. The petitioner agdn a reprcsentation on 4.5.2001 which is Annexurs P/8 and on 1.1.2002 which is Annexure P/9. 4. On 1.6.2003 the pctitioner received a notice dated 1.6.2003 i^sued by the No.2, according to that notice it has been informed that the petitioner's of birth is 4.9.1943 and he wlll be retiring on 30th Ssp+&mbsr, 2003. Thsr&fors +hs ordsr of +hs rs^pondsnt No.2 i^ ili&gai, cc'ntrary to the service record and the date of birth of the petjtioner therefore the impugned order be quashed. 5. has fifed on bcha!f- of the respondents in i^hich it has been mcntioned the date of birth of the petltioner cntered in the service record is 4.9.1943 which is evident from Annexurc R/l which bears the slgnotyrc of the petltioner and date of birth is also rccorded m Arsnexurc R/2 also thc signature of the petitioner. The 'mQtter _JL ® to the age determinQtion comniittee. In the year 1988 the age of the petltioner was determined QS 45 yecrs, and there cre disputed facts therefore the petition doe^ not iie and the document submitted by the petitioners are siot reliabie. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the partjes. 7. During the course of argumersts learrsed counsei for the petitioner submitted thot the school certificates reloting to the of birth of the petitioners not eonsidered by the and various representations were glven by the petltioner but the respondents have not considered those Thercfore the action of the respondents is arbitrary and unreasonabie. 8. &urlng the course of argument It I^QS suggested that the of the petitioner be referred to the age determinotion committee of the respondents/department with the direction to consider all the documents by the petitioner and to determinc the age of the petitioner to which ieGrned counse! for the respondents has no objection. 9. Tnerefore, having heard ieorned counse! for the pQrtics and having regard to the and circumstances of thc case, it is directed that the pctitioner mcike a detdied represerstotion raislng ali hls grlevances and should annex al! the documents whtch sre filed in support of this petition aiong with copy of the petitlon, and subrrtit the same to the Respondent No2 within a period of 15 from toda^. The Respondent No.2 is directed to forward ail the documents to the 090 determination commlttee and the age determlnation committee wiil considcr d! the document^ furrsished by the petltioner and if the petitioner can be medlcally cxamined In order \iu f r to the age of the petitioner ond glve its decislon wlthin another 45 from the of receipt of the from the Respondent No.2. Tne decision given by thc age dcterrriination committee be final and jf thc age committee give Its flnding in favour of the petitioner, then he wil! be to in service in accordance t^ith that age whlch bc by the age determination committee and further till the age Is ^ the comtTsittec, petjtloner mii continue in the scrylcc. 10. With the abovc observations thls petltlon is of finaljy. ^oma Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ^•^ '<0 ^