HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR W.P.No.1424 of 2006 PETITIONER Sidheshwar Upadhaya, s/o Late Shri Shyama Upadhaya, aged about 50 ysars, Senior Mining Sirdhar Mahamaya Colliery, Bhatgaon Area S . E. C. L. , Distn'ct Sarguja(CG) Versus RESPONDENTS 1 The Chief Managing Director, S.E.C.L., Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur(CG) 2 The Chief General Manger, S. E, C. L. , Bhatgaon Area, Disttiot Sarguja(CG) 3 The Sub Area Manager, Mahamaya Colliexy, Sub Area Bhatgaon, District SargujaCG) WRITm PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Aggearance: Shn’ Prafull Bharat, counsel for the petitioner. Shn‘ RS. Koshy, counsel for the respondents. ‘ ORAL ORDER g19.12.2oo7) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard. k ¢ I r. a, Heard fmally with the consent ofboth the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues thatAthe petitioner is Working on the post of Senior Mining Sirdhar 1n Mahamaya Colliery, Bhatgaon area, S.E.C.L., district Sarguja (CG). He submits that date of birth ofthe petitioner has wrongly been mentioned by the respondents in their official records and the petitioner is making continuous representations to the respondents, but the same has not been corrected so far. Therefore, the petitioner has tiled this writ petition‘ for correction of his date of birth as 8.6.1956, which has wrongly been mentioned as 6.4.1948. He refers to many service records of the petitioner as also the Implementation Instruction No.76, issued in this regard. @r I have heard learned counsel for the parti€s and have . also perused the record annexed with the petition. Mr. Koshy does not dispute that in case there is some mistake in the ently of date of birth of the existing Employees, Implementation Instruction No.76, shall be made applicable, according to which, the matter has to be referred to the age determination committee. He submits that the norms have been hxed in this regard, which are contained in the said Implementation Instruction No.76, filed as Annexure P‘4. Admittedly, there is a dispute regarding date of birth of the existing employee (petitioner) and the provisions of Implementation Instruction No.76, contained in internal page 2 of the same, shall be applicable in this case and the matter can be referred to the age determination committee, In View of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondents shall refer the case of the petitionen to the age determination committee as per Implementation Instruction No.76(AnneXure P-4) and shall get his age determined according to the said Implementation Instructions and shall communicate the same to the petitioner after its determination. This Court hopes and observes that the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 2 months from today and the matter shall be finalized prior to the date of retirement of the petitioner. W.P.N0. 1424 of 2006 The petition stands tinally disposednf I No orders as to cost. Sd/— Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ,l‘ uni“ ”