Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 11091 of 2012 CNR No.ODHC010221752012 Khadal Swain ..... Petitioner Mr. P.R. Bhuyan, Adv. -versus- Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. S. Ray, Sr. Adv. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 07.08.2026 Order No. 04 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. P.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S. Ray, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Opp. Party- MCL. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “The Petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition and issue Rule NISI to the Opp. Parties to show cause as to:- (i) why the retirement notice dated 07.01.2012 at Annexure-2 and the letter/order dated 09.05.2012 at Annexure-4 respectively shall not be quashed; And Page 2 of 4. (ii) why the opp. Parties shall not be directed to treat the date of birth of the petitioner as 11.12.1952 as per Annexure-3 and to make necessary correction in the service record of the petitioner within stipulated period; And (iii) why the opp. Parties shall not be directed to allow the petitioner to continue in service till 31.12.2012, by treating the said date as date of retirement of the petitioner on superannuation; And if the opp. Parties do not show cause or show insufficient cause then the rule be made absolute by issuing an appropriate writ or writs/direction or directions and any other order as deem fit and proper may be passed. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. It is contended that Petitioner’s date of birth though is recorded as 11.12.1952 in Annexure-3, but when he was issued with the notice on 07.01.2012 making him to retire on 30.06.2012, under Annexure-1 and prayer of the Petitioner to allow him to continue till 31.12.2012 was rejected vide communication issued on 09.05.2012 under Annexure- 4, the present Writ Petition was filed with the aforesaid prayer. 4.1. It is contended that since Petitioner’s date of birth is 11.12.1952 so reflected in Annexure-3, and in Identity Card issued under Annexure-1, the date of birth is only recorded as 1952, the retirement notice issued under Annexure-2 and rejection of his claim to continue up to 31.12.2012 issued vide letter dated 09.05.2012 under Annexure- 4, needs interference of this Court. Page 3 of 4. 5. Mr. S. Ray, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for MCL on the other hand contended that the birth certificate under Annexure-3 was only submitted when Petitioner was issued with the retirement notice on 07.01.2012 under Annexure-2. 5.1. It is contended that since such a birth certificate was submitted by the Petitioner at the fagend of his career and that too after receipt of the retirement notice, such a birth certificate was not entertained with confirmation of the date of retirement as 30.06.2012 under Annexure- 4. It is also contended that in the service record of the Petitioner, his date of birth is recorded as 01.07.1952, which was never challenged by the Petitioner till Annexure-1 notice was issued on 07.01.2012, with the date of entry of the Petitioner in service as 02.07.1972. 5.2. Accordingly, it is contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found in making the Petitioner to retire on 30.06.2012, taking into account the date of birth available in the service record. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and considering the submission made, it is found that the present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the notice dated 07.01.2012 so issued under Annexure-2 and further communication issued under Annexure-4 dated 09.05.2012 wherein prayer of the Petitioner to correct his date of birth and to allow him to continue till 31.12.2012 basing on Annexure-3 was rejected. 6.1. Since the birth certificate under Annexure-3 showing the date of birth of the Petitioner as 11.12.1952 was issued only on 24.04.2012 and was produced after issuance of the retirement notice issued on 07.01.2012 under Annexure-2, it is the view of this Court that such a Page 4 of 4. birth certificate is not acceptable and it has been rightly hold so by the Authorities of MCL. 6.2. It is also the view of this Court that such a birth certificate produced at the fagend of his career and claiming extension of the date of retirement is not permissible in view of the settled portion of law. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity either with the impugned notice issued on 17.01.2012 under Annexure-1 or order dated 09.05.2012 so issued under Annexure-4. This Court accordingly is not inclined to interfere with the same and dismiss the Writ Petition. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Jyoti