1 2026:CGHC:18836 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3524 of 2026 1 - Rameshwari Jagat W/o Late Yuashwant Jagat, Aged About 51 Years R/o Lch 19, Sbs Colony, Secl, Manikpur Road, Korba, C.G. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Office At Seepat Road Bilaspur C.G. 2 - General Manager, Crntral Workshop, Secl, Korba, District Korba C.G. 3 - Deputy General Manager, Central Wokshop, Secl, Korba District Korba C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 24/04 /2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 28.08.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent No. 2, in the interest of justice. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to refer the petitioner’s case to Age Determination Committee for adjudication of age, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit be granted.” 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been retired prematurely on 13.03.2026 stating that the petitioner has attained the age of 60 years. It is contention of the counsel for the petitioner that according to the directions issued by the Election Commission, the date of birth of the petitioner is of the year 1975 and therefore, the petitioner would attain the age of 60 years in the year 2035. He also contended that the age of her husband as recorded in the documents of the respondent department was 18.06.1969 and the petitioner is younger than her husband. According to the Implementation Instructions No. 76, when there is a dispute with regard to the age of an employee, it is the duty of the respondent authority to refer the employee to the Age Determination Committee which has not been done and therefore, respondents be directed to refer the petitioner to the Age Determination Committee for determining her actual age. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents would oppose the submissions made by the counsel for petitioner and would submit that the petitioner has been retired from service after considering the date of birth as mentioned in the service record. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been prematurely retired from service. Submission of counsel for the petitioner based on the documents enclosed with the writ petition that the year of birth of the petitioner is 1975. In the facts of the case and the documents referred by the petitioner, instead of keeping this writ petition pending seeking reply from the respondents, I find some substance in the submissions made by the counsel for petitioner and therefore, considering the provision of clause under Implementation Instructions No. 76, respondents are directed to refer the petitioner to the Age Determination Committee at the 3 earliest within a period of 04 weeks fixing the date for appearance of the petitioner before the Age Determination Committee from the date of receipt of copy of the order issuing notice. If the age of the petitioner is found below 60 years by the Age Determination Committee, then appropriate order shall be passed reinstating the petitioner in service immediately thereafter, preferably within a further period of four weeks. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY