WWW) )\)~ \ W ) Am HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (sy No. 4056 of 2007 PETITIONER : Bhagelu Yadav VERSUS RESPONDENTS : South Eastern Coalfields Limited & others (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Shri A. K. Prasad, Advocate for the petitioner. Dr. N. K. Shukla, Senior Advocate with Ms Ritu Mishra, Advocate for the respondents 0 R D E R (Oral) (Passed on this 21“ day of January, 2010) Heard. 1. The petitioner, by this petition seeks a direction to the respondents to correct his date of birth as on ‘13.1.1955’ in his service record and to retire him from service, accordingly. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Mechanical -Helper on 7.6.1976. At present the petitioner is working as Mechanical Fitter Category—VI in Jai Nagar, 3A Incline of SECL, Bishrampur Area. From the documents relating to service record (Annexure P/ 1 and P/2) it is apparent that the date of commencement of the employment of the petitioner is 155.1977 and his date of birth was recorded as on 13.1.1955. In the school transfer certiflcate (Annexure P/3), issued by the Principal, Janta Inter College, Jeevpur — Gajipur, the date of birth of the petitioner was also recorded as on 13. 1.55. According to the petitioner, on 29.7.1987 he was served with a copy of the service record (Annexure P/4) in which in column No.6 his date of birth was mentioned as ‘7.6.l951’. The petitioner objected about the W wrong entry of his date of birth, therefore, his actual date of birth was also recorded in bracket as 13.1.55. Thus, the petitioner was under the impression that his date of birth has been corrected in all his service records. When the wrong entry of his date of birth in the service book and payment slip continued, the petitioner submitted an application on 21.8.2006 (Annexure P/7) for correction of his date of birth. By letter dated 24.11.2006 (Annexure P/8) it was intimated to the petitioner that no action can be taken on his application for correction of date of birth in service record, in absence of approval from the Regional Head Quarter. Being aggrieved, the petitioner sent a legal notice on 24.2.2007 (Annexure P/9) and now, this writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that whenever any dispute arises regarding the date of birth then the respondents are under an obligation to get the case of the concerned person examined from the Age Determination Committee. In support of his submissions learned counsel rely on a decision of this Court in Itwari Vs. South Eastern Coalfield Ltd. 8a others1. 4. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to raise an industrial dispute before the Labour Court. He further submits that at the time of appointment, the petitioner pretended that he is an illiterate person and as such at the time of appointment he made his thumb impression in the service register. On the basis of the information given by the petitioner and after medical examination by the doctor, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded in the service record (Annexure R/ l) as 12007 (3) C.G.L.J. 452 - J i i 70 7.6.51. Thus, there was no occasion for the respondents to send the matter of the petitioner to the Age Determination Committee. 5. Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, this Court is of the considered opinion that in View of the disputed dates given in various certificates, coupled with the efforts made by the petitioner to get his date of birth recorded in service record, well in time, it seems to be necessary that the Age Determination Committee should consider all the certificates and other documents to determine the age of the petitioner and pass reasoned order. 6. In the matter of Itwari (supra) this Court has examined the identical issue and observed as under : “8. Clause (B) (i) (a) of the National Coal Wage Agreement III Implementation Instruction No. 76 (Annexure P/5) with regard to review/determination of the date of birth in respect of existing employees reads as under: “(8) Review/determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees; (1) (a) in the case of the existing employees matriculation certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by recognized Universities or Board or Middle pass certificate issued by the Board of Education and/or department of Public Instruction and admit cards issued by the aforesaid bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said Universities/Boards/Institutions prior to the date of employment.” 9. In view of the disputed dates given in the various certificates, it is necessary that the Age Determination Committee should consider all the certificates and other documents to determine the age of the petitioner and pass reasoned order thereof. 10. Despite repeated opportunities given to the respondents, reasons have not been supplied to the Court. The Supreme Court in the matter of Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others clearly observed that the condition to give reasons introduces clarity and excludes or at any rate minimizes arbitrariness, it gives satisfaction to the party against whom the l W order is made and it also enables an appellate or supervisory Court to keep the tribunals within bounds. A reasoned order is a desirable condition ofjudicial disposal.” 7. In View of the foregoing this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to refer the dispute to the Age Determination Committee to consider all the facts and pass a reasoned order with regard to the determination of the age of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably Within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order asto costs. ‘ l Sd/- § Satish K. Agnihotri & Judge Thakur