^oi< \u'1*1' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. JBILASPUR W.P.No. 150/2006 PETITIONBR Basantu Dubey, S/o Late Shri S.N. Dubey, Aged about 55 years, Occupation Service, Resident of Vishrampur, Tahsfl Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.j 1 South Eastem Coaffields Ltd., Through Chairiuaii-cum.- Maaagiag Director, Seepat Road, Basant Vihar, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 The Director Personnel, S.E.C.L. Seepat Road, Basant Vihar, Bflaspur (C.G.) 3 The Chief General Manager, Vishrampur Area, Surajpur, District (C.G.) 4 The Collieiy Vishrampur Area, Tehsil Surajpur, District Sur^uja (C.G.) 5 The Deputy Cluef Personnel Manager, Vishrampur Area, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja(C.G.) 6 The Sub Area Manager, S.E.C.L. OCM Vishrauipur, Tafasil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE Tahsil Surguja Maaager, Shri A.K. Shukla and Shri O.P. Yadav, counsel for petitioner. Shri Viaod Deshinukh, Couasel for the respondents. The petitioner, who is working on the post of over inan ia SECL Vishraiapiir Area, has filed this writ petition for coirection of date ofbirfh hi his service i^cords. It is contended \- & / 1 -—5*sff-r~ r •^' f)t Shyna W.P. No. 150/2006 by fhe petitioner that his correct date of birth is 15/7/1955, but it has beeu luentioned wrongly as 15/7/1950 in fhe service records. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submdt fhat when this fact came iato the knowledge of the petitioner, he inade eveiy effort for its conrection, but the correction was not inade by the concemed aufhority of fhe petitioner, therefore, the petitioner had to file this petition. They pray for a direction to correct the date ofbirth offhe petitioner. Leamed couiisel for the respondents white denying the contentioas of fhe petitioner has contended fhat on fhe basis of iaformation and declaration given by the petitioner, the date of birth of fhe petitioner has been nientioned as 15/7/1950 and the petitioner is uot entifled for its correction after such a long period. Bofb fhe counsel agree fhat fhere is a provision ia [lupleiaentation Instruction No.76 (hereiaafter referred to as 1.1. No.76) for correction of date of birth of eiuployees of SECL. There is speci&c provisiou regarding correction of date of birth relatmg to the existing employees. Adinittedly, fhe petitioner is stiU workiag as an existuij employee aud fhe provisions of 1.1. 76 would t>e applicable in his case and accordiugly, his matter can be referred to the age deterinination coiuinittee as per the aforesaid provision of 1.1. No.76. Accordnigly, fhis petition is aUowed. It is directed that the respondents shaU refer the case of fhe petitioner to fhe age determiiiation coininittee wifhin a period of 3 weeks fi-om today and the conunittee shall determine the age of fhe petitioner withui a period of 3 inonfhs froni fhe date of receiviug coininunication froin tlie respondents and shaU subinit its report to fhe concerued respondents, who shaU cominunicate fhe same to fhe petitioner also. With fhe aforesaid observations/directions, fhis petition stands disposed of. No order as to cost , Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge 3 1-