// (Lgw 1N T1 E HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILAsPUR (CHHATISGARH: wm KIT PETITION N0. “1% . OF 20% / / z" / “iM / m’handrama Ram, S,’0 Ram ,..."Q¥6€} _ I years, Surat Ram, -R/g aged Korea abeut Colliery 56 . / Area, D1stnct Korea (C.G.) VERSUg RESPONDENTS ,1? Souih Eastern Coalfieids Ltd. I A subsidiary company of Coal India Limited, having its through its Registered Office at Seepat Road, Bilaspur through Chaiman-cum- Managing Directcr, Bilaspur. . Chief General Manager, Chirmiri Area, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, P.0‘ West Chinm‘ri, District Korea {CG} . Mines Mana er, Korea Colliery, South Eastern Coal- fields Ltd. Distt. Korea { CG) w" NJ: » r WRIT‘PETITION F INDJ'A FOR ISSUANCE UNDER ARTICLE OF WRIT 226 IN NATU OF THE CONSTITUTION ioner above~named most respectfully submit as under: PARTICULARS OF THE PEHTIONERS: d in the Cause Title above. PARTICUIARS OF THE RESPONDENTS: v a As mentioned in the Cause Title above. x; As me {3) ' / “ . fay ” O 't V n " e K Writ Petition No. 293 of 2003 Chandrama Ram Velsus Petitioner Respondent South Eastern Coamelds Ltd. & others single Bench: f§onue Mr. Justice saush K. whom. ; Shri Ashish smivastava, Ad 'the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Pandey, Advocate for the mspondents. ORAL ORDER (20th February, 2006) ‘ ,7 Q mfened the dispute to the age determinah’on committee as pmvided, in the National Coal Wages Agmement-III. The age determinaubn committee after having examined all th service reconis of the petitioner came to the conclusion that the date of irth of the petitioner was 1.4.1947 vide oEce order dated 17.5.2000 (Annexme P/ ). 12 2. Earlier vide onier dated 29.4] 2.5.2002 (Annexule P/ l5), addmssed to the Supdt. of Mines/Manager, Colliery, mtirement tice was issued to the petitioner o retixe him hum sewioes W.e.f. 31.7.200 on attaining the 60 yearsbf age on 15.7.2002. Later on ide order dated 6.5.2002 (Annexul P/ 16) the earlier retirement notice was cancelled, on the basis of the information received, i egard to th determination of the age by the age determination committee. hereafter vi impugned orer dated 19.8.2002 (Annexme P/7) retireme notice was again issued to te petitioner entioning that on the hasis of Mining Siidai’s certihcate, 60 years of the age of the petitioner has been completed, as such, the petitioner is being retired ‘f" w.e.’f. 19.8.2002 itself. ; 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the matter was referredto the age determination committee, as there was a dispute in the date of birth of the petitioner. Admittedly, the age determined by the age determination committee was binding on both sides and the committee vide its. order dated 17.5.2000 has determined the age of the petitioner as 1.4. 1947. It is not clear when the earlier retirement notice was cancelled on the basis of the decision of the age determination committee, what were the circumstances, which persuaded the. respondents to issue the impugned order dated 19.8.2002, retiring the petitioner horn his service. e b no t 2 v e n r e T de d nt h m The petitigner hm $cd this petition seeking a dimction of this Court to the e ect that the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner in senrice and allaw him to continue 13'11 he attains the age of superannuation, considering his date of birth as 1.4.1947 with all consequential benents. This prayer is based on the nnding recorded by the age determination committee. The hnding of the age determination committee is binding as per the National Coal Wages Agieement-III on both the patties. The mspondents have not questioned the authenticity of the date of birth determined by the age determinah'on committee in any of the proceedings or by Iefern'ng the matter again to the age determination committee. In so far as the present case is concerned, the date of birth i.e. 1.4. 1947, determined by the age determination committee, which remained unchallenged by the respondents, is hnal. In View of the foregoing, this petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to give eEect to the date of birth recorded by the age determination committee i.e. 1.4.1947 by reinstating the petitioner and granting all the consequential beneftts within a pen'od of one month fmm the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. No order aslto costs. Before parn'ng with the case, 1 must menh'on about the conduct of the respondents. The respondents have attempted to conceal the televant facts despite this court’s order dated 24.1.2006 whereby the respondents were directed to produce National Coal Wage Agreement, indicating the status of the age determination committee as well as its x binding edect on the party. The respondents have deliberately and intentionally keptrthe information back so that the case could not properly be adjudicated. The conduct of the respondents is despicable and condemnable. However, in the kcts of the case, when the age detsrminah'on committee, which is constituted by the lespondents themselves and is a statutory body, as provided under the Notional Coal Wage Agreement, has determined the age of the petitioner i.e. 1.4. 1947, is final in the case of the petih'oner. Cex mied copy, as per Rules. / Sd/— satjsh K Agnihoui Judge