/ /^^ <^/=- I_N,THE_ HIGH: COURS OF JUDIC^HJRS,^e_,gjLASPUR CHH^TTISGXRH /' ^.P . M). 2-72^7 _/2005. PETITIONER' RESPOHDENrS ^ ^y .' ^w/ /w />7^/ /.^\? <?^7 ^y Ram Lochan Shukla S/o Rarnji Shukla Retired Employee Zila Sah< Ken<»Mrdtt Bank^^/0 Village Jalso P.0. Semartal Tah. &, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.).-, V3RSUS Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative BanK, (populaly imown as APEX BA <) : II Raipur IC..G.) • Through General l|l Manager^C.G^ State Co-opvBankRaipuri|J District Co-Operative Central Bank ;|, Ltd» Bilaspur {C.G.\ Through s Chief Executive Officer, District Co-op» Central Bank Ltd. j^ Bilaspur (C»G») ^" ^' MRI'I' PSTITION UI-3DER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CgiiSTI3?UTION__0£l___INDlA,_FOR,,IS SUANCE , OF SUITABLS ^RIT/^RITS/DIRSCTION ETC TO DO JUSTICE IN THS .^ t^^TSR. \ •^- HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wrlt Petition No. 2727 of 20<^ Petitioner Ram Lochan Sliukla Versus Respondents Chhattisgarh State Co-operative Bank & aaothcr SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Shri Pushpeudra Kumar Patel, Advocate for £hepetitioner. Shri S. L. Kiirmi, Advocate for the respondents. ORDBR (7th November, 2006) The foUowiiig order of fhe Court is passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioner jomed services m the respondent No.S/Baiik on 1.5.1967 aad his date ofbirth m the service book was recosded as 1.7.1946, The petitioner, in the conrse of his service, did not qiiestion fhe date of birth tffl it is found that m the senioritv Ust dated 31.3.2001 (Annexure P/4), whereia naaie ofthe petitioner is mentioned at serial niimber 20, his date ofbirth was recorded as 1.7,1947 and it was farther found that in flie subsequent seniority list (Aanexure P/5) also, wherein name of the petitioner is mentioned at serial number 65, his date of birth was recorded as 1.7.1947. The petitioner did not make any representation before fbe employer Bank for change of his date of birth on fhe basis of the said seniority list, 2. The petitioner has filed the instent writ petition praying that the petitioner be perDiitted to work tiU 1.7.2005 on the basis of flie date of biith recoiTled in the seniority list. The petitioner further Thakur clamis wages and iaterest at the rate of 13%. The iiotices were issued to the respondents. 3 Shri S. L. Kurmi, leamed couiisel appearing for the respoxideiits subniits that recorcliiig ofthe date ofbirth iii the seniority lists is a typographical mistake. The petitioiier ought to have made an application before the respondents for correctioii of the date of birfli. The petitioner has not done aiiything. The petitioner kept quiet till he found soisie typographical mistalce iii fhe seniority lists aud filed a writ petition direcfly to tliis Cozirt. 4. Be that as it niay, after hearing leamed coiuisel for fhe parties and on perusal of the papere it is clearly established that the date of birth recorded in fhe service book (Amiexure R-2/1) supported by the school leavuig certificate (Annexure R-2/2) as 1.7.1946, is conclusive and the petitioner cannot take aiiy advaiitage of some typographical mistakes crcpt m the seniority liste, which remained zuichallenged for a long period. The petitioner has fiirther not raised fbe issue before fhe respondents for correction of his date of birth. 5. For the reasons statecl above, the petition is devoid of nierit ancl stands accordingly disiaissed. No order as to costs. sd/- .. ... SatishK.Agnttlotn Judge