T^. ^ f!-. ^ ^v ^ ^ ' ^^ ?...[. .^ ••.^^t ^ SIIISLt Bts'fe? c^ 1 era x •-€ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS) No. ^aSX /2008 PETITIONER ^y/ ^^/ "•6^^ /^^^\/v .-••'^'\y / JoiddhaPrasad Sahu, aged about 55 years, S/o GTilam Prasad, R/o Qr. No, 1/3 Dhhlwadeeh Project, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) ^••?- ^';.«s" '^y RESPONDENTS /1 VERSUS South Eastern Coal.field Limited, Throygh TBe Ghairman Cum Managing Director, South Eastern Coal fields Hmited, Seepat Road Bilaspur (C.G.) The.BireGtor.fPersiQnnel), S.E.C.L. Seepat ^RoadSilaspur (C.G.) The Elept.tty^GeneralManagerS.E.G.L Dhhelwadeeh, Sirighali Project, Post BankimpngFa, District Korba (C.G.) ThePersonnel officer S.E.C.L Dhhelwadeeh, Project, Tahsil KatgHora, District Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTIGLE 226 AND 2270FTHE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA •/;2. 3; /^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BLLA_SPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice PritinkerDiwaker) Writ Petition (S) No.7052 of 2008 PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS Joiddha Prasad Sahu South Eastern Coal Field Ltd. and ors. Shri Rajesh Chand counsel for the petitioner. Dr.N.K, Shykla learned Sr. counset with ShriShailendra Shukla for the respondents. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA J ORDER (01.09.2011) Present petition relates t6 correction in date of birth of the petitioner who was an employee of SEGL and retired on 30.6.2008 from the post of Pump Khalasi. 2. According to the petitiBner, his correctdate of birth is 25.6.1952 whereas in the service bookthe same has wrongly been mentioned as 1.7.1948. Accordingto him, sometime in November 2003 he came to know about wrong date of birth being mentioned in his service record and therefore on 12.11.2003 he made a representation (Annexure P- 1) for correction. According to him, he has also submitted copy of the primary examination certificate (Annexure P-2) in whieh also his date of birth is mentioned as 25.6.1952. Petitioner has also filed copy of the transfer certificate and the extract of the school register showing that his date of birth is 25.6.1952. According to the petitioner, earlier also he hadfiled a writ petition before this Court(W.P. No. 162/2008) which was disposed of with a direction that the age determination committee should look into the grievance ofthe petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 3. Counsel for the petitionersubmits that the age determination committee has passed the impugnedorder (Annexure P-5)in a cryptic p - r:3.;^ '' ^^ B B 5:?2te> 1 "s""^ g ''^^.^ ^f --2.— and mechanicat manner without assigningany reason and thereby rejected hjs representation. He submits that the age determination committee was under obligatibn to consider all aspects of the case andpass a detailed order inviewof 1.1. 76. By way of rejoinder also, the petitioner has filed annexure P-7 showing that his educational qualification is 7 standardand therefore beforethe age determination committee he has submittedthe mark sheet of7 lilass and the same ought to have been considered and 'the petitioner under no circumstance couldsubmit the mark sheet of Higher Secondary as he has not taken education up to that standard. 4. Replying to the arguments of the counset for the petitioner, it has been argued by the counsel for the respondents that the impugned orderdatecl 1.9.2008 is merely a commutiication to the petitioner that hjs date of birth has been found as 1.7.1948. He has also referred to the additionat document i.e. the report of the Apex Medical Board (Annexyre R-1) giyen after eonsidering all aspects of the case of the petitioneranci then comjng to the conetusion that his date of birthi$ 1.7.1948. During£irgument,Gounsel for the respondents has also shown the original service reeord of the petitioner. 5. Heard counsel for the parties andperused the documents on record. 6. FromthedoCumentofAnnexure R-1 itis elearthatthe petitioner was also produced beforethe Medical Board, tiis radiolQgicaltest was conducted and ultimately he was fbund to beabove 60 years ofage. Further, befbre the age determination committee the petitioner had produced the duplicate copy of the mark sheet of primary school examination (Annexure P-2) and transfer certificate (Annexure P-3). From the marksheet pf primary schoolexamination (Annexure P-2) it is apparent that it was obtained in the year 2Q01 as on the top of said document year 2001 has been printed whiGh after being scored has been written as 1966. Transfercertifteate(Annexure P-3) has been ; issued on 28.12.2002. Though in these two doeuments dateof birth of B inl ^ ABfe^E£»--^-- =^^ rn^^^^3"'t^.^- v^v \ c a8pnf ja'}[BMiQ jaquiiuj -VS . i • , , •yons se pessiiusip s.i iipuBpsssiLusip sq oi siqeii si eouej.sqns tno^iM 6uisq uoiutsd ai|} 'iinsai 94} u| •6 •SLUBS ayt 4iiM aje^etui 0}]jnoo si4»joiuoseej ou aq otsjeeddesjeiitpuetoejjoo sig^si'Z'l se g lujoj u.i peuoitysiu iiyiqp 3}epS!L| ley} jsuoi^adsqt BUIIUJO^U! p8u6ndLui jspjo 941 }eq) uoiuido psjopisuoo sqtjo si ynoo s\ift eseo 9i|»p seoueisujnojio pue s}3Bj ai<} ||E psjepisuoo snqi BuiAei-j •9 •jesjeo 931AJ3S Sj4 ^o pue fiejaq} )B.IO }U9LuaJ!}9J siq sjojsqsjeaA MS^ E }snf p96uB40 eq 0} psMO||e aq tOUUEoaoiAjes 94} (06 tueAjas }uaLuujaAo6 eift qoi4M jo siseq 3i|} uo spjooej }U9LUUJSAOB ui uogoejjoo (64} puBJoejeasoiAjes siiip pue Gei syite yjjiqjo etep^o s6uei(ojo^ A|dde 0} psujiujed aq }OU||IM seAoiduje ue}eq} p8|H9S ||3M si »| • L "8fr6l."Z"l s.i W\qio Q}ep 8.14 tei|i sjeadde }i OS|B etues 84} uiojj pue jeuoiiiied eq} ^o pjooaj eoiAjes SJ.4U9 94t uMoys os|e sey luepuodssj siy joj issunoo -peuBndLui jspjo 94} 4}iM punej eq ueo unej ou eseo 94} pssouBtSiunojio pUB StOB^ 94} ^BUUeplSUOO '9SBO SL|} JO S}39dSB |en}3B^ 94} yt.im 6ui|e9p ai.iqM jepjo e)Bjoqe|8 AJSA Epsssed }ou 354 aeHiLULUoo uoiieuiiujetap e6e eqi 'qBnoyi "QfrSI.'Z'l. si Jsuoiiiisd ei)} p yyiq ^o 9}ep PSJJOO leqi pue psAeiieqeq touueo eLues aifl tey} uoisnpuoo 94KB 6u.iAuje3joj9q98HiLuiuo3 uoiiBuiLujaisp a6e sq} Aq pejepisuoo useq SAei) ASII} pue ZS61."9"SZ SB UMoys useq SEI< jauosBed eq} z &^ ^^•^'