^' ^' 0o ^ BEFORE THEHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR IN THE MATTER OF WRIT PETITION N0.__'_l_l_'__/2002. PETITIONER v-^' •^ . ^.^^^ ^^'&'l^ ^" RESPONDENTS Saheb lal S/o. Nathuram alias Chhatturam aged about 54 years Occupation - Dozer Operator, Manikpur Colliery, SECL Ltd. R/o. Pump house colony, Qtr. No. M-211, Tehsil & District - Korba. VERSUS General Manager Manikpur Colliery Project, SECL Ltd. Tehsil & District - Korba. Senior Personal Manager Manikpur Colliery Project, SECL Ltd. Tehsil & District - Korba. \^^ PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ORDER / DIRECTIONS IN NATURE OF WRITS OF MANDAMUS. CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ^ s HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR W.P.N0.1SS7/2002 Saheb Lal Vs. General Manager, Maaikpur CoUieiy Project, SECL, Korba aad aaother ORDBR ^ ; ^ ^^ ..-A"^u v -^' '•^ ,^) :<^A- Postfor 22.08.2005 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge '^ Ys HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILA8PUR W.P. N0.15S7/2002 Saheb Lal Vs. General Maa^er, Maiukpur CoUieiy Project, S.E,C.L, Korba aad aaother Shri Anoop Majunidar, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri Praveen K. Das, counsel for the respondents. ORDBR (22.8.2005) SunU Kumar Sinha, J. (1) The petitioner, who has retired during fhe pendency of fhis writ petition on 30.6.2003, had filed fhis writ petition for correction of his date ofbirfh as 01.11. 1948 in place of 07.11.1943. (2) The case of fhe petitioner is fhat he was appoiated as a Labour ia fhe year 1971. He was not aware about fhe entty regardiag his date of birth as 07,11.1943 ia his service rccords. When he coiild coiae to know ia fhe year 1988 about fhe said wrong entry, he inade aa appUcation to the conceraed aufhority ia fhe Dionfh of August 1988. In rcply to fhe said appUcation^ fhe Deputy Personnel Man^er of the CoUiery iafoniied fhe petitioner vide memo dated10/11-08-1988 fhat fhe matter of correction of his date of birth shall be exaniiaed by the Area Task Force Coinmittee, constituted for coniplamts pertamiag to date of birfh for which fhe petitioner shall be mtimated. Thereafter, fhe petitioner was never mtimated. However, when fhe petitioner approached fhe respondents, it was informed fhat corrections have been made ia the service records. Later on, when the petitioner -^- F"'—^ .,-) again checked his service rccords for some msurance piirpose, he caiae to know fhat no corrections have been inade, fherefore, he agaia filed representations dated 20.6.2002. This representation was rej'ected vide nienio dated 01,7.2002 sayiag fhat the entry ia service book is correct. A reference is miade ia the said xneino dated 01.7.2002 that the certificate aanexed by the petitioner alongwith his representation was a photocopy, thercfore, it was not considered accorduig to Inipleinentation No. 76. This correspondence has been filed as Annexnre P-5. It is subnutted that iastead of rejectiag fhe appUcation ia such a niaaner ao. opportunity would have been given to fhe petitioner for fiting the origmal certificate aiid thereafter any order could have been passed. In support of fhese contentions, fhe petitioner has filed certificates ia which his date ofbirth is shown as 01.11.1948. ^ (3) Retura has been fiLled on behalf of fhe respondents. It is contended by fhem that fhe petitioner has raised fhis dispute ia fhe second round at the fag end of his service. In fact, eariier he had raised fhis dispute in fhe year 1988 on which his matter was referred to fhe task force committee and fhe coinmittee afiter exaimniag fhe case offhe petitioner on 04.9.1988 assessed the age ofthe petitioner as 01.7.1943 which was accepted by fhe petitioner ia presence of fhe coiamittee nienibers. A copy of the recoiniaendation of fhe task force conmiittee has been filed as Annexure R-2. After the said recomiaendation, asi endorsenient was niade ia Fonn-B (Annexure R-3) and fhe inatter came to an end ia the year 1988, The petitioner ignoring aU fhese facts has raised fhis dispute for the second time which is not permissible at this stage; fhercfore, fhe petition should be disnussed. (4) I have heard learaed counsel for the pardes at length aad have also perused the records offhe writ petition. (5) Annexure R-4 filed by fhe rcspondents is the Inipleiaentation No.76 which relates to determuiation ofthe age ofthe einployees at various poiats oftime. Paragraph-A provides for fhe determination -3 ^-. i x of age at fhe date of first appoiatment, whereas Paragraph-B provides for rcview/determmation of date of bulh m rcspect of existmg eniployee, which would be applicable ia the present case. Certain inodes regardiag detertaiaation of the age or date of birth have been given ia fhis paragraph aad it has been provided vide sub-para. (iii) of Para-B that where there is no vadation ia records, such cases wiU not be reopened uiiless fhere is a veiy glaring aad apparent wrong entiy brought to fhe notice of the management. It has ftirther been provided fhat the inaaageinent after beiag satisfied on fhe merits ofthe case wfll take appropriate action for correction fhrough the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board. It has also been provided vide Para-C that aa Age Determiaation Coininittee/Medical Board for fhe above inay be constituted by fhe Maaagement aad appropriate cases shaU be referred to it. (6) Ifwe examiae fh.e case offhe petitioner, it would appear fhat a communication dated 07.9.1988 is there on recoid which shows fhat fhe task force conmiittee held on 04.9.1988 assessed fhe date of buth of the petitioner as 01.7.1943. It has also been mentioned ia fhis communication that fhe said date ofbirth was accepted by fhe petitioner m presence of the members of fhe Committee. This coniiniuucation is a Cyclostyled Proforma in which fhe nasne and date ofbirth etc., are written ia the blank column. However, it does not disclose as to how fhe Task Force Committee assessed fhe date of the birfh of the petitioner as 01,7.1943. This document filed by fhe respondents does not bear the signature of fhe petitioner also. There is no inention of fhe certificate filed by the petitioner alongwith his representation in fhe year 1988 (Annexure P-2), The averments offhe petition as weU as fhe retura would show fhat the appearaace before fhe task force committee aad communication of fhe recommendations of the Task Force Committee to fhe petitioner are the disputed facts which this court is not goiag to determiae m this writ petition. But fhe fact remauis fhat fhe reconimendation dated 7.9.19©8does not show as to how fhe task force coxnmittee caine to fhe conclusion fhat the date ofbirth offhe ^^^^..^^'^K^L^'.^ -'1- petitioner was 01.7.1943 aad the saaie was rightly entered ia fhe service records. (7( If we look iato fhe coimnunication dated 01.7.2002 (Annexure P-5), which was sent to fhe petitioner by the Personnel Maa^er on his representation dt 20.6.2002, it would appear that his representation was dismissed only on fhe ^ound fhat tfae petitioner has filed fhe Photostat copy of fhe certificate which was not acceptable as per Inipleiaentation no.76 (Annexure R-4). This shows fhat the grounds raised by fhe petitioner ia the representation were not taken icito consideration and this order was issued to hiin. Even fhe concenied authority did not call upon fhe petitioner to furaish fhe origmal of fhe same, aad fhe matter was turaed down wifhout consideration on ments. (8) In fhe facts and circuinstaiices of this case, particularly, looking to fhe communication dated 07.9.1988 (Annexure R-2) informing fhe decision of the task force conuidttee aad fhe otitier communicatioa dated 01.7.2002 (Annexurc P-5) rejecting fhe case offhe petitioner wifhout consideration, I aai ofthe opiaion fhat, ia fact, the dispute raised by fhe petitioner regardiag correction ofhis date ofbirth xnuch pnor to the date ofhis superaniiuation has not been properly dealt wifh on bofh fhe occasions eifher ia fhe year 1988 or in thejear 2002, therefore, I deem it appropriate to issue a direction to the respondents to rcfer the case of the petitioner to the Age Determination Comiinittee for determining his ^e. (9) It is hereby dirccted fhat fhe respondents shall rcfer the raatter of fhe petitioner to fhe Age Determination Coinmittee wifh all fhe documents filed by him alongwifh fhe writ petition wifhia a period of one xnonfh from. today. On receipt of such reference^ fh^ Coiaiaittee shatl dispose offhe inatter as early as possible,wifliin a period of one monfh finom the date of receipt of fhe said reference. The recoimnendation of fhe Age Determination Committee shaU take its own course. Therc is aa iateriin order dated 30.6.2003 in /Rao/ -5- which learaed Senior Advocate appearing for fhe respondents has subxnitted as under: "It is submitted by Shri Nair fhat even if the petitioner is retired today, he will be permitted to continue ia accoianiodation till further order and if he retires and ultimately he succeeds, he wiU be entifled for fhe benefits and fhe objection regardiag no work no pay would not be takeu/' For the time beiag, fhis iatenm order, so far as it relates to occupation of the company's accouimodation, shall contmue tiU fhe final decision taken by the mana^ement after the reconuneudation ofthe Age Determuiation Comiaittee, (10) The petition is allowed to fhe extent indicated above. However, the parties are directed to bear fheir own costs. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge