ASHA RAM BEDIA Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent Central Coalfields Limited (CCL).

(2.) Perused the impugned judgment and the relevant materials pointed out by learned counsel for the parties from the pleadings on record, which include Annexure-2, report of the Area Age Determination Committee dated 15.02.1991 whereby age of the writ petitioner/ appellant herein was determined as 40 years, duly acknowledged by the writ petitioner also by endorsing his signature thereupon; Annexure-9, Form-A of Coal Mines Provident Fund containing the declaration by the person employed in that coal mines i.e., appellant, wherein at column 10 the date of birth is mentioned as 16.03.1959 and the Implementation Instruction No. 76 of the NCWA providing procedure for determination / verification of age of the employees as produced by the parties.

(3.) Learned Writ Court by the impugned judgment dated 21.07.2015 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5607 of 2010 rendered a finding that determination of age of the petitioner as 40 years as on 15.02.1991 does not require interference in the background fact that the writ petitioner neither challenged the method of conducting of the medical examination nor at any point of time, immediately after the report of Area Age Determination Committee, raised his grievance before the authorities, rather he approached this Court in 2010 after superannuation notice was issued on 29.08.2009 / 22.09.2009. Reliance was placed upon the case of Seema Ghosh Vrs. TISCO, 2006 7 SCC 722.