1 2025:CGHC:44521 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 897 of 2019 1 - Chandrika Prasad S/o Shri Munni Lal Aged About 50 Years R/o Chirmiri Podi Colliery, Tahsil Manendragarh, Police Station Chirmiri, District Korea Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. Through Chairman Cum Managing Director South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Seepat Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director (Personnel) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Head Quarters, Seepat Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - General Manager South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Chirmiri Area, District Koriya Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Area Personal Manager South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Chirmiri, Ocm, Chirmiri Area, District Koriya Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For SECL/Respondents : Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshmukh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.09.08 12:43:37 +0530 2 Order on Board 02/09/2025 1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking following relief(s): “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may be further pleased to direct the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 05.06.1968 in his service record. OR 10.3 That, the Hon'ble may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to refer the case of the petitioner to the ADC in accordance with the provision of I.I. No. 76. 10.4 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be further pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to retire the petitioner considering his date of birth as 30.07.1959 and allow the petitioner to continue his services till his date of superannuation considering the his date of birth as 05.06.1968. 10.5 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submits that petitioner was initially appointed as General Mazdoor on 21.08.1988 with respondents/South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (for short, the SECL). At that time, he had submitted matriculation certificate to demonstrate his date of birth as per Annexure P/3. He further submits that in Annexure P/3 which is service record of 3 petitioner, his date of birth has been mentioned as 30.07.1959, whereas, as per mark-sheets of class 5th , 8th and Adhaar Card (Annexure P/2) of petitioner, his actual date of birth is 05.06.1968, but in his service register his date of birth has wrongly been mentioned as 30.07.1959. He further submits that though petitioner has been retired on 31.07.2019, as per date of birth mentioned in service record (Annexure P/3) which has been wrongly mentioned, therefore, he prayed that date of birth of the petitioner may be directed to be corrected and accordingly, other service benefit flow from said correction may be directed to be granted to the petitioner. 3. Respondents/SECL have filed its reply. Learned counsel appearing for respondents/SECL referring to its reply would submit that petitioner entered in employment of SECL in the year 1988 and he retired on 31.07.2019, but he raised dispute for the first time with regard to his date of birth on 27.11.2018 vide Annexure P/5, i.e. at the fag end of his service. He further submits that in service record (Annexure P/3) of petitioner, his date of birth was mentioned as 30.07.1959 on the basis of his certificate of matriculation filed by him. This date of birth was also accepted by the petitioner vide Annexure R/1 (Form-B) and Annexure R/2 (Service Register). He further submits that the petitioner raised said dispute at the fag end of his service and even he has also not filed matriculation certificate filed by him while joining in service, hence this instant petition is liable to be rejected. 4 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and peruse the material available on record. 5. As per service record Annexure P/3 of the petitioner, his date of birth was mentioned as 30.7.1969 on the basis of matriculation certificate filed by him. That date of birth was also accepted by him in Form-B (Annexure R/1) and Service Register (Annexure R/2). The petitioner for the first time raised dispute on 27.11.2018 vide Annexure P/5. He retired from service on 31.07.2019, thus, he raised dispute with regard to his date of birth for the first time at fag end of his service. Further, as per his service record, his date of birth mentioned in Annexure P/3 was on the basis of his matriculation certificate, but that matriculation certificate has not been filed by the petitioner in the instant petition, therefore, he cannot be permitted to raise such dispute at the fag end of his service, i.e. at the time of retirement, that too without filing matriculation certificate on the basis of which his date of birth was mentioned in the service record. 6. In view of above discussion, I do not find merits in this petition, hence, this petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ravi Mandavi