Singw gamh‘ ‘ @agé No,....;\2 CF/O‘o/ BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETmON (S) No. WHEO /2006 WRIT PETITIOIN UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTTON OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS f CERTIORARI / PROHIBITION ETC. mo PETITIONER Domudhar Singh, aged about/x '59 years, son of Late Roodhar Singh, resident of Dokar‘lghat Para, Near karma Kotfn Mandfr, Vijayaward, Jagdalpur, DIStrict Bastar (Chhattésgarh) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. The State of Chhattisgarhh. through — the Secretary, Department of Forest, Dau Q 4 . Kalyan Slngh Bhawan, [00 (5:3 ob Q6 Mantralay‘, Rafpur ,6“ gt“ 2' 323:2;i211:1?§:;m?“ $ 2 w 0‘3” 3. The Conservator of Forestr .Jagdalpur Circle, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Bastar (General) Forest Division .Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w. P. (s) No. 4780 of 2006 PefHioner Domudar Singh Versus Respondents : The Sfafe of Chha‘H’isgarh & ofhers Singie Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Jusfice Sufish K. Agnihofri. Shri RN. Jha, Advoca‘re for fhe Pe'i'i'l'ioner. Shri Satish Gup'fa, Dy. Govt Advocai'e for The respondenfs/Sfafe. o R o E R (6*‘1 sep+ember, 2006) v 1. The pefifioner was employed as For-es? Guard in Bnsfor Range, Fares? Depar‘tmenf of fhe $1'a're of Chha'H’isgar-h. 2. By nofice dafed 30.10.2003 ’(Annexure P/3), 1he pe’fifioner was - informed 'H'mf he would be r'e‘fir-ed on supemnnuufion w.e.f. 30.6.2004 offer having comple'red 60 years of age on 1.7.2004. The pefifioner fhereaffer kep'r quife and did no‘i challenge his dafe of refiremen'f. The pefifioner retired from service on 30.6.2004. 3. According 1'0 learned counsel for 'l'he pe‘li‘fioner, 'l'he pefi'lioner has made several represenfa‘l'ions before fhe responden‘l's/ou'lhorifies for correc‘l’ion of his dafe of bir'lh. IT is we" se'Hled principle of law That of 'l'he fag end of service of an employee, fhe ac‘r dafe of birth cunnof be quesfioned, ual f0 disfur senioH-y of ofher employees, whose service records have been seffled. 5. In +l1e fac'l's of 'fhe presenf case, 'rhe pe‘l’i‘lioner kep'r quife offer 30.6.2004 Till the filing of fhis pe'rifion on 31.8.2006 when before +haf he was served wifh fhe no'licer dafe 30.10.2003 abouf his supemnnuafion. Since 1'he pefifionr did no? Take any ac-rion or did no'r make any represenfa'lion for correcfion of his dafe of birfhin fime, no case is made ouf for indulgence of This sfage for dermina'rion of The dafe of birfh. fe f Even fhe pe'rifioner has refired_w.e.f. 30.6.2004 6. For 1'he reasons aforentioned, fhe wrif pefifion is dismissed. No order as 'ro cosfs. 1 Sd/— Satish K. Agnihofr‘i Judge ‘ b f d e ’ em