n ( mm mm “E; "\'L»‘ ’ a ¢ m THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 223—?) OF 2005 WRIT PETITION {INDER ARTICLE 227 55 226 OF THE CONSTETUTEQN OF ENDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT iN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS I CERTIORARI ETC OR DIRECTIONISI I 0RDER‘S) IN THE LEKE NATURE ETC. r PETITIONER / SHOBNATH PANIKA, SON OF LATE BISHAMBHAR PANIKA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, WORKING AT KURGA COLLIERY, SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD., HASDEO AREA, POST- BIJURI, DISTRICT ANUPPUR~ (MP) VS RESPONDENTS / 1. SOUTH EASTERN by COALFIELDS LTD., THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN oq CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, SEEPAT ROAD, BILASPUR a}. [c.a] 2.THE PERSONNEL MANAGER (LR), SECL, SEEPAT ROAD, BILASPUR [C.G.] 3.THE MINE SUPERLNTENDENT MANAGER, PALKIMORA MINES, DISTRICT KORIYA, @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT’BILASPUR W.P. Ng.2258of2005 ‘ Shobnath Panika Versus R¢spondents South Eastern Coamelds Ltd. & others SB: Hon‘ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Petitioner Miss Sharmila Singhai. Advocate for the petin‘oner. Shri H. B. Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Miss Sangeeta Mishra, Advocate for the mspondents. ORDER ( Passed on this 9‘“ day of March, 2007) The foliowing order of the Court is passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. . Learned counsel appearing for the peh‘tioner submits that the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 25.7.1946 (Annexure PI2). The petitioner came to know that this has been mentioned without assigning any reason, as the B Form — Service Register (Annexure RH) does not indicate the date of birth but it mentions the age of the petitioner as 29 years, as on 29.7.1975, without any basis. . Leamed counsel appearing for the petihoner further submits that the other document i.e. the letter dated 13.8.1987 (Annexure P12) also indicates the date of birth of the petitioner as 1“ January, 1953, which was struck down and corrected as 29 years, ason 25.7.1975. . Be that as it may, without going into the factual aspects of the matter. l am of the view that the matter ought to have been examined by the Age Determination Committee of me respondentsiSouth Eastern Coaltieids Ltd. The respondents have constituted the Age Determination Committee for the purpose of deciding and determining the issue of date of birth. ln the present case. admittediy. this exercise has not been done and it appears that the duplicate mark-sheet of Higher Secondary School CertiticateExaminatiom 1973. issued by the Board of Secondary Education. Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal (Annexure Pl3). which indicates the date of birth of the petitioner as 1.1 .1953. has not been'considered. . Since the Age Determination Committee is already in existence to decide and determine the issue in question. it is desirable that this dispute be also referred to the Age Determination Committee of the respondents for decision. in accordance with law. it is ordered. accordingly. 5. The petition is allowed to the above extent. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thai-tun