Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for quashing the letter dated 30.12.2002 (Annexure-6), issued by the Respondent No. 3 pertaining to the notice of retirement of the petitioner and the petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondents to send the petitioner for medical examination as per the Implementation Instruction no.7 for determining the age of the petitioner.
(2.) The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application, are that the petitioner was appointed in Jealgora Colliery and has been working as a Foreman. The date of birth of the petitioner in the official documents like I.D. Card, Coal Issue Card etc. has been recorded as 01.08.1948. It has been averred in the writ application that in pursuance to the policy decision, the petitioner was issued with the service excerpt, wherein, the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 01.08.1948 and when the petitioner was suffering from heart ailment, he submitted application for his medical examination and at that relevant point of time, the petitioner came to know that his date of birth is recorded as 01.07.1943 in the Form A.M.B. 1 by the Management as per Annexure-3 to the writ application. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation for correction of his date of birth from 01.07.1943 to 01.08.1948. Inspite of the several representations, no action was taken by the Management for correction of the date of birth of the petitioner. Thereafter, on 30.12.2002, the petitioner was issued with a notice of retirement that the petitioner would retire on attaining the age of 60 years on 30.06.2003. Being aggrieved by the notice of retirement, dated 30.12.2002 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), the petitioner left with no alternative has knocked the door of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
(3.) Mr. Abhishek Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the action of the Respondents-authorities in issuing the impugned notice of retirement, amounts to colourable exercise of power. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents by changing the date of birth of the petitioner from 01.08.1948 to 01.07.1943 has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner since the petitioner has been constrained to face civil/evil consequences being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of the respondents in changing the date of birth of the petitioner unilaterally without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is in the teeth of celebrated judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in SCLJ (3) 1963 in the case of State of Orissa-versus-Dr. (Miss) Binapani Devi.;