Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. - (1.) THE grievance of the petitioner, in this writ petition, is that though he raised a grievance regarding the wrong entry of date of birth in the service records long before, but till date there has been no determination or assessment of his age. The petitioner's objection regarding the wrong entry was to be decided by the authority, which has been prescribed in the Instruction No. 76 of the Implementation Instruction but the same has not been done. The petitioner was not referred to Medical Board, as per the procedure prescribed for determining the age of an illiterate employee. The respondents have dealt the said objection in perfunctory way and without following the due provisions have rejected the petitioner's claim. It has been stated that respondents are bound to follow the procedure prescribed in the Implementation Instruction. Rejection of the petitioner's grievance contrary to that is arbitrary and illegal.
(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents contesting the petitioner's claim. It has been stated, inter alia, that the objection raised by the petitioner was referred to the Age Assessment Committee of Nirsa Area Eastern Coalfields Ltd. The Committee assessed the age of the petitioner by determining the Date of Birth as 8.5.1949. The determination made by the Assessment Committee was communicated to the petitioner long back vide letter dated 13.4.1989. The petitioner has, thus, no valid claim/grievance to be raised at this stage, after lapse of a long time. The petitioner once again raised the same objection by an application dated 18.01.2006. The same was forwarded to the higher authorities of the Eastern Coalfields Limited vide letter dated 25.7.2006. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered W facts and materials on record. The admitted position of this case is that the petitioner had raised his objection regarding wrong entry of date of birth as far back as in 1989. When the same was not determined and communicated to petitioner, he again raised the objection in 2006. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the objection raised in 2006 has been referred to High Level Committee. However, nothing has been stated as to what happened thereafter.
(3.) THE petitioner has relied upon the provisions of the Implementation Instruction No. 76, which, according to him, is the prescribed procedure for determination/revision of his age. On perusal of the said provisions, it appears that specific provisions have been given for determination or review of the age of the employee. It provides for referring the matter to the Age Determination Committee or Medical Board to be constituted by the Management. Instruction B (ii) D prescribes for determination of the age. The Committee/Medical Board referred to above may consider the evidences, available with the Colliery Management and/or adduced by the employee concerned. Clause E of B(ii) provides that Medical Board constituted for determination of age will be required to assess the age in accordance with the requirement of "Medical Jurisprudence" and the Medical Board will as far as possible indicate the accurate age assessed and not approximately.;