Chhattisgarh High Court
WP/2564/2003 of BHORE LAL Vs M/S S.E.C.L.BILASPUR AND OTHERS on 5 December 2003
CHHATTIS^RH AT PETITZONCTf. Writ Petitton No.2564 ef 2003 Bhoreia! S/o Sri Amar Sd, aged about 56 years, Cat V Machinist, Rsgional Workshop, Korea (C.6.) -Versus- RESPONDENTSs 1. M/s South Eastern Coai Fields Limited, Through, The ChQirman Cum MQneging Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur.
COURT OF JU&ICAWRE. CHHATTIS^RH AT BZLASPU^Wrst Petitlon No.2564 of 2003PETETIONER:Bhoretel S/o Sri Arrsar Sd, aged obout 56years, Cat V Machinist, Regional Workshop,Korea (C.0.)-Versus-RESPONDENTS:1.M/s South Eastern Cod Pields Llmited,Tliroiyh,TheChQirmQnCumMcsncgingDirector, Seepat Road, Btlaspur.Dy.ChiefEngineer(E&M5RegionalWark^iop,Korea/GhirmiriArea,Dist.Korea (C.5.5.Petitloner by Smt. Meena Shastri, Advocate.Respondents by Shri P. S. Ndr, Senior Advocate with Shri Vinod Deshmukh,Advocate.
Befors: Hon'bte Shn L.C. Shadoo. J.
OR&ER
(Passsd on^^&ecember, 2003}
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The petitioner who is working as a Cot. V. Mcichinist under the control of therespondents has preferred this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of theConstitution of India, chalicngirig thc order Ex.P/10, retiring the petitionerw.e.f. 30Scptember 2003 con^idering date of birth of the petitsoner o^4.9.1943.
2. Jhc petitioner's case is that he was appointed as lob^ur on 1J.1977. In theyesr[1987][ a][ letter][ carryir^][ detdls][ of][ thc][ service][ i/yas][ issued][ to][ thc]petition€rdirecting him to flll upvacant coiumns and thcreafter totheback to the department. A copy of the SQme is enclosed as Annexure P/l.According to the column No. 6(1) the date of bir'th of the petitioner is 1.2.1947. The petitioner compicted his pniunary education In the yecr 1960;acertifjcote to this effect is Annexure P/2. In the yeor 1963 the pctitionercompieted his middje education, certificotes to this effect are Annexure P/3and P/4. In certificotes theof blrth of the petitioner isas1.2.1947.Tnc p€titioner alsoreceivedtrainlngin IndustriaiInstitute,AmbikQpur from February 1965 to Juiy 1966 and a certlficote Annexure P/5is^ued in whlchthe dote of birth of the petltioner is mentioned ss1.2.1947.3.The petitloncr made a representotion on 7.11.1991 before the competentauthority for correctlon of the wrong date of birth. A copy of theisAnnexure P/6. Agdn on 21.8.1998 hemade a reprcsentation forcorrection of dote of birth butno positlve stepstaken by themanagement. The petitioner agdna reprcsentation on 4.5.2001 which isAnnexurs P/8 and on 1.1.2002 which is Annexure P/9.
4. On 1.6.2003 the pctitioner received a notice dated 1.6.2003 i^sued by theNo.2, according to that notice it has been informed that thepetitioner'sofbirthis4.9.1943andhewlllberetiringon30th Ssp+&mbsr, 2003. Thsr&fors +hs ordsr of +hs rs^pondsnt No.2 i^ ili&gai,cc'ntrary to the service record and the date of birth of the petjtionertherefore the impugned order be quashed.
5. hasfifed on bcha!f- of the respondents in i^hich it has beenmcntionedthe date of birth of the petltioner cntered in the servicerecord is 4.9.1943 which is evident from Annexurc R/l which bears theslgnotyrc of the petltioner anddate of birth is also rccorded mArsnexurc R/2alsothc signature of the petitioner. The 'mQtter_JL
to the age determinQtion comniittee. In the year 1988 the age of thepetltionerwas determinedQS 45 yecrs,and there cre disputed factstherefore thepetition doe^ not iie and the document submitted by thepetitioners are siot reliabie.6. I have heard learned counsel for the partjes.7.During the course of argumersts learrsed counsei for the petitioner submittedthot the school certificates reloting to theof birth of the petitionersnot eonsidered by theand various representations wereglven[by][ the]petltioner[but][ the][ respondents][ have][ not][ considered][ those]Thercfore the action of the respondents is arbitrary andunreasonabie.8.&urlng the course of argument It I^QS suggested that the of thepetitionerbereferredtotheagedeterminotioncommitteeoftherespondents/department with the direction to consider all the documentsby the petitioner and to determinc the age of the petitioner towhich ieGrned counse! for the respondents has no objection.9. Tnerefore, having heard ieorned counse! for the pQrtics and having regard totheand circumstances of thc case, it is directed that the pctitionermcike a detdied represerstotion raislng ali hls grlevances and shouldannex al! the documents whtch sre filed in support of this petition aiongwith copy of the petitlon, and subrrtit the same to the Respondent No2 withina period of 15from toda^. The Respondent No.2 is directed to forwardailthedocuments tothe090determinationcommltteeandtheagedetermlnation committee wiil considcr d! the document^ furrsished by thepetltioner and ifthe petitioner can be medlcally cxamined In order r ^
^oma tothe age of the petitioner ond glve its decislon wlthin another 45from theof receipt of thefrom the Respondent No.2. Tnedecision given by thc age dcterrriination committeebe final and jf thcagecommittee give Its flnding in favour of the petitioner, thenhe wil! betoin service in accordance t^ith that age whlchbc by the age determination committee and further till the age Is^ the comtTsittec, petjtloner mii continue in the scrylcc.10. With the abovc observations thls petltlon isof finaljy.
Sd/-L.C. BhadooJudge