V./ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.NO. B ^- / 200< Petitioner ,1 Respondents •^ -1 Versus ^- ^•/ /^3.,. ^ 4.~y /^ Ganpat Ram S/o Shankar Lal, Aged about 55 years, Occupation - Mining Sardar Main Mines S.E.C.L, Surakachhar, Dist: Korba-(C.G.) South Eastem Coalfields Ltd., Through C.M.D. Head Office, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Dist: BUaspur-(C.G.) The Director (Personnel) Head Office S.E.C.L.; Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Dist: Bilaspur-(C.G.) The General Manager, Surakachhar Colliery, Korba, Dist: Korba-(C.G.) The Sub Area Manager, Surakachhar Colliery, Korba, Dist: Korba-(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA ^" XI-HC-22 W^T^T f^TW^I^T 3ffTR??rf^T s^^n^r, ^w^ f^rey 3TT^?TI^T9T WTOTWW'-'r>-'^:s^/^ 2005 47 3T'^T^nTW:^f??r 20^2( ^tf^frrwrat'^-'fe^ ^RZK ^3Tf^[r3H^T On a montion being mad©,tt^caso is takon up for hoaring. Mr. Suresh Verma, counse! f^r the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Ranjan Sinha, coun^el for the respondents. The petitioner has preferred) this wrlt petition under Artlcle 226/227 of the Constitution of India, questionjng the legatity and propriety of the letter/ communication dated 5-10-2004 (^nnexure P-4), whereby the petitioner was informed that based on his date of birth i.e. 11-3-1945 he wiil be reiiring on 31st March, 2005, on attainina the ^ge of 60 years on 10-3-2005. Return has aiready been fi! the arguments for fina! disposal ar< The petitioner's case is tha^ bd on behaif of the respondents, therefore, heard. his correct date of birth is 6-4-1949 and to this effeet the school leaving cert|ficate Annexure P-1 is in his favour. The pstitioner joined service on 24-4-1(973 ai Banki Mogra Coiliery, Districi: Korba as General Majdoor. Thereaftert he was asked to pass the departmental examination for the post of Mini(ig Sirdar and he passed the said Mining Sirdar Examination on 29-10-1986. The certjficate Annexure P-2 of the same was issued in which aiso his date of birth was recorded as 6-4-1949. Despite the date of birth of the p|etitioner 6-4-1949 his incorrect date of birth has been mentioned as 11-{3-1945, iherefore, the impugned letter/ communication Annoxur©P-4 iss^iod by respondents No.3 & 4 be quashed. Return has been fjled or| behalf of the respondents in which it has been mentioned that in Form 'p' (Annexure R-1) the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 11-^-1945, and in the Meniais' Service Register (Annexure R-2) as aiso the servjce record (Annexure R-3) the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as p 1-3-1945. Annexures R-1 & R-3 bear the signature of the petitioner. Th|@refore, the petitioner is not entitied for the XI-HC-22 W^T^FT f^ri^3:n^r ^^IGh^f?cf ^ISNC^I ^t^T^ 3^ -^I^ICl^, tS>Tll^<l(o, [cidl^f^ sn^rq^^ ....w.-.A.^.-r.^y.^ ^^ 48 3TI^T^:crr^K?Tf?cT benefit and now he js not entil determination of date of bjrth irj implementation Instruction No.7^ considered as vaiid and the sch<fl Board Certiflcate of Matriculationl document for existing employees| to be dismissed. Having heard learnod cou^ facts and circumstances ofthecai Sub-clause (ii) of claus^ (Annexure R-4) regarding de^ appointment envisages that "in studies In a recognized educatic|nal the School Leaving Certificate, s|hal the same wilJ not bo aitered under non-matriculate as per the schoop his date of birth is recorded Certificate Annexure P-2 issued Board of MiningExamination, th^ 6-4-1949, however, jn the servic^ the pstitioner is recorded as 11-3-|- in view of the above (ii) of clause (B) of Implementeti^ envisages that "wherever there 'K be reopened unless there is a ve(y to the notice of the Managemen|. the merite of ths case wiil tak^ cbi^l^i41ri ^i^^T^te^<f^«« ^3Tf^R'3TT^T |ed to chailenge the date of birth as per respect of existing employee, Part 'B'of ?, the Mining Sirdar's Certificate is to be ^ol leaving certificate is not vaiid. Only the lexamination has to be considered as valid In view of the above. the petition deserves is©tfor the parties and having regard to the se, i have perused the record. (A) of implementation instruction No.76 irmjnation of the age at the time of ?he case of appointees who have pursued institution. the date of birth recorded in Ihall be treated as correct dat©of birth and any circumstances". Th©petitioner js a leaving certificate (Annexure P-1) in which is 6-4-1949, also in the Mining Sirdar's by none else than the Chajrman of the date of birth ofthe petitioneris recorded as record (Annexure R-3), the date of birth of 1945. evidenoe and in view of sub-clause >n instruction No.76 (Annexure R-4), which no variation in records, such cases will not glaring and apparent wrong entry brought The Management after being satisfied on appropriate action for correction through oontr^dictory XI-HC-22 ^TI^TOFH- f^Tw^n^r ^rf^^f?cf v<-, 3^ "4NIC1-4, yiTO'y^Ko, ?cjdl^^< NS^C^I^W^ 3il^g ^...4Q.<; q^^ 49 '"; ^ 200^ f^5^' 3:n^T5^TT^K^T menti4ns bitth Determination Committee/MQdicsji Instruction No.76 envjsages Board wjll be constituted by the| whose date of birth cannot be mentloned in (B) (i) (a) or (B) (i) of the company, namejy, Form B| as final." Clause (D) Committee/Medicai Bpard may Coiliery Management and/or Clause (F) further envisages tha|t Assessment Committee consistinb and Medicai Officer-in-charge of| disparity between the date pf apparent age of the employeo,| Medical Board located at age." As mentioned above, ther< documents as in the seryice recorded as 11-3-194$, whereas| Sirdar's Certificate the date of am of the opinion that in such Impiementetion instruction No.7$ case of the petitioner shouid Commjttee by gettjng the petitior|e the help of the medical report as| the petitioner should be decided b|y adduced Headqi|iarters chi^?d41'i ^i^€nT^te1^'<^<i< ^3Tf^r3TT^T Board". Clause (C) of implementation th4t "Age Determination Committee/Medical, Management. in tiie case of empioyees de|termjned in accordance with the procedure db), the date of birth recorded in the records register, and Jdentity Cards wii) be treated "For determination of the age, the 4onsider the evidences, avaiiable with the before the employee concerned." "Where the management (i.e.) Area Age of General Manager, Personnei Manager the Area is satisfied that there is glaring recorded in the identity cards and the the cases may be referrsd to the Apex of the company for determination of r^cord birfeh is an apparent contradictjon inthe above of the petitjoner the date of birth is in the school leaving certificate and Mining of the petitioner is shown as 6-4-1949. 1 cir^umstances, clause (F) and clause (B) (ii) of should be pressed into service and the |be examined by the Age Determination r|er examjned medicajly, and thereafter, with I well as the documents, the date of birth of rthe Age Determination Committee. XI-HC-22 3TT^T^T f^t^)3n^T ^rtoF^TfN' 1. Soma TST '^1^ M<<, «»Tn'M<i6,(ci<ni'y^< 3il^l M51<^ _...Ci?.^..^^ ^Wvi\ shKl* -'^-""^-••-""f'^ 200^ 5.0 3TT^T^<TTW^1?cT -^ in the result, the petition| Manager, Surakachhar Coiliery, ^ <=t)i^f<n41-i ^i^^T^te^'<Ri<rdi< ^^rf^TW^T is aiiowed to the extent that the GeneraJ [^orba, should refer th©case of the petitioner to the Age Determinatjon Committee along with the relevant record filed by the petitioner and the sen/ice r^cord. The Age Determination Committee after getting the petltioner medic^iSy examined for determinatlon of age shail give its finding regarding the da^e of birth of the petitioner and that shall be treatedasfinai. }n view of this order, M.(V|/.)P.No.35/2005 and JA.No.123/2005 stand disposed of. Parties are entitled for certyied copy of this order. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge