'/•• v AT >. No.SSS Adya Smgh, aged abont 50 years, Under Ground Loader, R/o Q.No.169, Shanti Nagar, Rajnagar, CoUieiy, Hasdco Arca, District AnuppurfMP) yersas 1. South Rastei-n Coalfif-lds Liiuited, Through its Chau'Daau-cuui-Mau.agm.s Dircctor, Seepat Road, Bflaspur(CG) 495006 2. Chief Genei-al Manager, South Eastem Coaifields Limited, Hasdeo Area, District Manendr^arh(MP) 3. The Siib Area Manager, South Eastem Coalfields Ltd., Rajnagar re- oi^anization Hasdeo Area, District Manendragarh(MP) Shri R.Miikhopadhyay, connsel for thc petitioTier. Slui P.S.Kosliy, counsel for the i-esponfients. Heaid. l^eamed couasel for tiie petitioner siibinits that the petitioner was boni at. village -Vartha, Post Raipur Chobe, Disti-ict. Deoria(UP) on 29.1.1956. Hc was appointed as llndergronnd I^oader in Rajnagar Coilieiy on 2.3.1977. Ttie petitioner has stiidied -ap to High School stanriard aiid tbe copy of niark sheet of Higli Scbool Examiiiation has been fited as Annexiire P-2. The petitioner has also filed the copy of Character Cei-t-ificatR and Ti-ansfer Certificate, issiied by tbe Principal, Panchayat Inter CoUege, Deoria vide Annexiires P-3 P& P-4. He submits that ui the Character Certificate, date ofbii-th offlie petitioner has heen mcntionp.d as 29.5.1956 and in tismsfer certificate a1so, (late of tiirth of UIR petitiorier taas heen iTecorded as 29.1.1956. He fiirther subniits that dne to SOD'IF. uieaaasi^au—a W.P. 2.R52/2006 inistake, date of birth of the pet'it.ioner has been iieconled as 2.3.1948 in his sersrice iTecoiids in possession of tiie i-espondents, tiierefore, apparently, there is a dispute re.gardnig date of hu-fli of fl-ie petitionp.r, who ia working with the Tespondents and the petitiouer has f.o file this petition for a dil-ectiori tn the respondents to correct t.1je date ofbirth ofthc petitioner as 29.1.1956. Retaini lias bee.n filed on behalf o1 the wspondents. Along with other objections, the responrlents have mainly contended tizat in aH serwice recoiTls awai'iaWe with the responrlents, date ofbirih oft.be netitioner is inent.ionet-1 as 2.3.1948 and relewant sei'vice i-Rcords bear the sigriatiires of the pctitiorier, tliei'efow, t3~tere is no necessily of interierence by t.his Court and the petition sho-uM be disinissed on the basis of Rartjciilars nf the sei'vice records of the petitioner. Copfes of relevant pages of service book has a'lso been ffled atong with t.he retim'1. 1 bawe taeard leamed conriscl for the parties at lengt.h and have also penised the contents of the writ petitioTi as well. as the retuni. Admittedly, date ofbirtl'i oftlie pe.titioner has 'hRen recorcied as 2.3.1948 in the sei-vjce 1'ecords fiied along with the retum of SECL and the-iTe is no factiial dispute about sucta exiatence of entjy in the service records. A penisal of the records fited along with the writ petition woiild show that. in Anne.xili'e P-3, which is the Cbaracter Certificatp., issued hy the concemed Principal in thp. yp-ar, 1974, date of birth. of the petitioner has lieen cntered as 29. 1.1956. Likewise, iii Annexiu-e P-4, which is the copy of Scholar's i-p.gister and the transfer cei-tificate also, flate ofbirtli of the petitioner is entered as 29.1.1956, therefore, there appe.ai's tn he a dispiite in the date of birt.li of the petitioner. A pemsal of Annexnre. P- 1, which is the copy of iinplementation/instniction No. 76, wonld stiow that a proceduTe has toeen laid down for review (letermination ofdate hii-th in respect of the existing employees. That meaiis if some dispiite is raised aboiit the date of birth that has to be rcsolwed bv tte einptovRi" nl accoi'dance- wifh tlie. W.P. 2i?S2/?.OOfi 3 proceriiire fbr fietemiination/vRrifiRatior) oftbe age of the employec as perinipienieTitation/instnictior! No.76. This tegal position is not dispiited 1iy lcamf'd coiinsel for the respondents a1so. J have gonc through the corstRnts ofAnnexiirR P-1. After hearing leamed coimsel for the partiRS, I am of flie opinioTl fhat this is a fit csse, in whicll; t'hf employer may fae dii'c-cteri to get the controvei-sy rcsolved H-oder tlie provision of iTnplementatjoTl/instniction No.76 and to liave a review detei'minat.ion ofthe date ofbirth ofthe petitioner, who is admitt.efDy in their ei'nployinerit. ThcrRfon;, this petition is aflowerl . The re.spondeTits are fiiiiected to refer the matter ofShe petitioner to the age detemiinatjon committee as per the procp.diirf 1aid down in jmplement.stjori/ mstllictioa No.76. Et. is stated that accoriing to t1ie SECI.-, flie petitioDer is to retire on 3Tlt Marcb, 2008, tTierefore, it is rlirected that. the contmversy regarrlmg age ofttie petitioner shall 1">e resolved wittlin a period of 3 roontTis from today, so that the rcsiilt can be obtained prior to the date of retiTenient ofthe. pet.itioner. There shatt he no orr}er as to costs. Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge sunita 1;.