c ^•vo£)i 'si.. ^^^^» IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH BILASPUR Writ Petition No:-?3 '72005 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS .<<^ o^ c/>v^"-^ ^7^y/ ~./^^y' ^",-^ S' ^ ^\ Muchhan S/o Amzad Ali aged about 52 years cle^grade - II Bijuri colliery R/o Bijuri Colliery Hasdev area District - Shahdol (M.P.) Versus f" 1. Managing Director The South Eastern Coal fields limited head office Sipat road, Bilaspur (C.G.) r 2. Chief General Manager (Adm.) South Eastern Coal Fields Limited, Sipat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) /'3. Chief General Manager Hansdev Area, Bijuri Colliery District: Shahdol (M.P.) 4. Dy General Manager The South Eastern Coal Fields Limited Bijuri up Kshetra Bijuri District - Shahdol (M.P.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1_- XI-HC-78 ^l^dl sb^lcb 3^T ^ii^id^, ^Tfl^^Ko, R<ni^^< (J^ €3.^1 ^ 200^ 3ll^l ^^^h 3TI^Tcprf^TbF ^T^TT^ ,'^;- ^cfRK^cTW^T 29-6-2006 Mr. Shrawan Chandel, couns^ Mr. Ravi Ranjan Sinha, counsjel for the respondents. cbi^fd4)<i ^i^^iT^'tel^<Rt^i< ^3Tf^T3T^T 1 for the petitioner. I.A.No.6066/2006, appiicatioi allowed. Documents are taken on re i for taking documente on record, is ;ord. By this writ petition under Arlicle 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direc|tion to the respondents for correcting the date of birth ofthe petitioner as 11-4-11953 in place of 1-7-1949. The case of the petitioner i^ that he was appointed through direct recruitment on 26-6-1972 when he time of entering in service the petiticj Bijuri and Somana areas inviting a| \NQS at about 19 years of age and at the »ner'sdate of birth has been recorded as 1-7-1949. Thereafter, respondent Is|o.4 issued notice to all the empioyees of plications with certificate till 21-1 2-2002 vide Annexure P-1 for correction o^ date of birth. On receiving the notice Annexure P-1, the petitioner mov^d for correction of date of birth in a prescribed format along with birth <j;ertificate and school certificate showing his date of birth as 11-4-1953. Cop^ofthe said appiicatjon is Annexure P-2. Thereafter, the petitioner appeare^i personally, but till now he has not received any order. He met resj|>ondents No.3 & 4, made written and personal requests to them, but they|did not give any reply. Even before the notice Annexure P-1, the petitioner| submitted an application to respondent No.4 for correction of date of birt!|i. Thereafter also he again submitted appiication to the North Managemer asked to appear before the Medi^ wanted to submit certificate rsg^ of Jhagarakhand and the petitioner was al Board. At that time, the petitioner irding date of birth and educational certificate, but the Medical Board refused to receive the same. According to the recorded date of birth in the ser|vice record, the petitioner wili retire from XI-HC-78 3^T ^i^icn^, ^Tf1<-i^i(o, ^i^y • .U^^T:^^ ^l^dl Sb^lcb * 3ll^l ^^«h(^i^^) ^ 200 ^r (^J ^n^T^^ich cT2TT3TT^?T$b^i<=b ?^TTW ^f?cT W^?T — 2-rh 1-7-2006. The petitioner made r^ considered and decided. Retum has been filed on be| been mentioned that the petitioner| chi<Mf<n4)'i ^iH^iT^te^iRi^-K ^3Tf^T3TT^?T presentetions, but the same were not iialf of the respondents in which it has was appointed on 26-6-1972 in Bijuri Coiliery, Hasdeo Area, and as pe< the service record, 'B' Form, service register and other authentic docume»|its,the date of birth ofthe petitioner is 1- 7-1946. For determining the age o1 the Age Determination Committee decided and declared the date of bii R-3. Once it has been decided by is no need to re-examine the case o1 the petitioner, the case was referred to on 28-11-1988and the Committee ^h as 1-7-1946. The report is Annexure |he Age Determination Committee, there 1 the petitioner regarding date of birth. !n the iast pay certificate (LPC) and ofher authentic documents viz., 'B' Form, service register, ADC report, Last Pay Certificate and nomination forms. copies ofwhich are Annexures R-11^ R-5, the date of birth ofthe petitioner is mentioned as 1-7-1946. Therefore, t|ie petition be dismissed. 1 have heard learned counsel fjarthe parties and perused the record. !t is admitted position that Fo|rm-B was not filled by the hands of the petitioner. In column 4regarding a^e and sex, initially his date of birth was recorded as 1-7-1949, same was sc4>red out and it was written as "1-7-46 as per LPC". Xerox copy of the service register is on record in which the date of appointment ofthe petitioner is ment|oned as 26-6-1972 and in the coiumn of date of birth it has been mentione<P that "as on 1976-77 =31 years". In Form-B v/hen the correct date of birt|i of the petitioner was recorded, why the samewas not recorded in the servic^ register, reasons are best known to the Irespondents. On 7-9-1988, the A^e Determination Committee considered the case ofthe petitioner and in wh determinedas 1-7-1946. |;h the date of birth of the petitioner was XI-HC-78 w^T^rf^t^ rrar 311^1 sb^icb'l ^ w^rrawNr ;^;:^n^r, ^rto^, f^ircpK co.' i, ^^iltl<l<o, iqdl^qR >'^&^^1 ^ 200^~ 311^1 Msith ('i^ST^T) ?^TW^f?cT3TT^T nrra^-'^fe^ <R|^|< ^3?^TT3T1^T The petitioner's case is ^jhat after receiving the notice dated 17-12- 2002 (Annexure P-1), the petitioher submitted documents regarding his date of birth viz., schoolcertificate|inwhich as per Bihar Vidyalay Pariksha Samiti's record, the petitioner's (date of birth was recorded as 11-4-1953. A certificate of doctors (Medical (Board) has also been annexed who after examining the petitioner, determjned hisage as 52-53 years as on 9-7-2005. facts it is clear that in the first instance, the date of birth of thepetitioner wa|s recorded in Form-B as 1-7-1949, same was later on scored out and recofr-ded as 1-7-1946 based on the LPC. In pursuance of the not'ice issue^ by respondent No.4 in the year 2002, the petitioner submitted his schoo| leaving certificate and considering that the matter requires to be determir^ed by the Age Determination Committee, the case of the petitioner was ex< and the date of birth of the (j imined by the Age Determination Committee etitioner was determined as 1-7-1946. The papers prepared by the Comr|iittee were piaced by learned counsel for the respondents on record, on th^ direction of the Court, in which simpiy it has been mentioned that no do<;umentary evjdence of the proof of age is submitted and the age rec^rded as in Form-B appears to be correct, therefore the petitioner's date|of birth was recorded as 1-7-1946. Whereas, Clause (C) of implemerttation Instruction No.76 'Procedure for DeterminationA/erification ofA^eof Employees' envisages that "Age Determina(ion Committee/Medical Board forthe above will be c^nstituted by the Management. In the case of emplo^ees whose date of birth cannot be determjned in| acGordance with the procedure mentioned m (^) (i) (a) or (B) (i) (b)above, thedate of birth recorded ii Form B registe| (untampered) v| } the records of the company, namely, ', CMPF Records and Identity Cards 'ill be treated as final. Provided that variation, in the age recorded in the XI-HC-78 ^l<4dl sb^lcb 3'^r ^Nici^, ^Tn^4i<o, f^cii^y (A.').P^<S^^, ^ 2005^ 311^1 451<*» ((lcli4<s'<^) 3TT^T^lf^n^ cTSTT 3TT^T ^TW t ^cTTW ^rf?cT W^T - ^ records mentioned ab< to the Age Determina constituted by the Ma age." Clause (D) envisages that "For determination of t Board referred to abov available with the adduced before the em Further, Clause (E) envisages| "Medical Board constituted will be required to asspst the requirement of "M|edical Medical Board will a^ accurate age assessed| Therefore, when the petitione birth i.e. school certificate in respons on 17-12-2002 and there is clear Form-B and the school certificat asceitain the age of the petitioner Medica! Board. Even though, in tt Determination Committee examinec stated that the age recorded in referring the case of the petitioner f as per Clause (E) of Implementatio correct procedure whereby after coi petitioner in accordance with the rei age couid have been determined, respondents. <=bi^F<n<J1Ti ^i^<rtT^te1c^'<Ri<^i< ^3Tf^T3TT^T >ve, the matter will be referred tion Committee/Medical Board nagement for determination of ie age, the Committee/Medica) e may consider the evidences, Solliery Management and/or ployee concerned". that for determination of age the age in accordance with Jurisprudence" and the far as possible indicate the and not approximately." I- submitted papers regarding his date of to the notice given by respondent No.4 |variance befrween the age recorded in ^, the respondents were required to by the Age Determination Committee/ \e year 1988 i.e. on 7-9-1988, the Age the case of the petitioner and simply fform-B appears to be correct, without ^T his examination by the Medical Board >h Instruction No.76 and that is the only i|iducting the medical examination of the duirement of Medical Jurisprudence, the |>ut same has not beenadhered by the XI-HC-78 3:n^T^rf^?w ^r^^T^VU^! ^;3Trawr, ^ftw?, f^frey mror aw^ -^'^^s€^/ ^ 200^ 3n^rqsra?((^g^q-) ?^TW^T37T^T !n the circumstances, ascertain correct age of the ^rf^frTW^-'^te^-^T^K ^^Tf^ran^r it appears to be appropriate that in order to etitioner, let the Age Determination Committee determine the age of the peptioner and the petitioner's case be referred to the Medical Board for exatrfination in accordance with the requirement of "Medical Jurisprudence" andjthe Medical Board after medically examining the petitioner in accordance wi1?i the requirement of "Medical Jurisprudence", determine the age^nd sam|e shall be forwarded to the Age Determination Committee, trten the Age t)etermination Committee after considering the certificates submitted by the| petitioner, the age recorded in Form-B and the opinion of the Medical Boar|d shali decide the date of birth of the petitioner, and that shall be final. Orde|red accordingly. As per the existing date of birth. the petitioner is supposed ^o retire by tomorrow. Therefore, it is imperative that the petitioner'scase nfiust be.referred^immediately and he should be '^^-^^. examined by the Medical Roard." The Age Determination Committee shall decide the case ofthe petiti petitioner shall continue i determined by the Age Det^ ^nerwithin a period of one month and till then the i sen/ice and his date of birth which will be rmination Committee is to be treated as final. With the observatic|ns and directions aforesaid, the pet'rtion stands disposed of. |M.(W.)P.No.2406/2006 also stands disposed of. Parties are entitled f()r certified copy ofthis order. inviewofthisorder, Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge WSfil!SiS^K^^^^^ 'lte^MiaamnNNK