.'--» QP1-^Q-o IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) WRITPFTITION (S') No.5li^^/2007 PETITIONER .^•'/•• ^ ^.-'"''^...-••"' i. ^' ,/ t^r^^ lam Balak Pandey, S/o. Late Jamuna Prasad Pandey, Mining Sirdar, aged about 52 years, Jainagar Colliery, S.E.C.L. Bishrampur Area, District Surguja (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Through: C.M.D. Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) yi. General Manager, Bishrampur Area, S.E.C.L. Bishrampur, District Surguja (C.G.). WRIT PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLE 226 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. B HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.3452 OF 2007 PETITIONER Ram Balak Pandey Versus RESPONDENTS South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Another (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri S.N. Prasad, Advocate for the petitioner. Dr. N.K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate with Shri V.P. Singh, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 18"'dayofApril, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Shri Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been writing to the respondent authorities since 16-10-2001 (Annexure - P/1) for correction of his date of birth on the basis of his high school examination marks sheet provided by the Bihar School Examination Committee, which was issued before entry into service and further other documents, wherein his date of birth has been recorded as 20 January, 1955. Learned counsel further submits that clause (^ (ii) of the Implementation Instruction No.76 clearly provides for review/determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees wherein the preference has to be given to the matriculation certificate or higher secondary school certificate issued bythe recognized University/Board. 3: At this juncture, Dr. Shukla, learned senior counsel appearing with Shri Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the respondent authorities may be permitted to get all the documents examined in accordance with the provisions of the Implementation Instruction No.76 strictly in accordance with its letter and spirit by the Age Determination Committee (for short "the ADC"). For that learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has no objection. Accordingly, the matter is disposed of with a direction to the ADC to consider the case of the petitioner, in accordance with law and on •its own merits, as early as possible preferably on or before 31st July, 2011. __^--—-^TT~~~~~~" ' SatishKAgnaiom Judge