Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.26 seconds)
Abdul Nawab vs South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.And Ors on 2 August, 2021 cites

Brij Mohan Singh vs Priya Brat Narain Sinha And Ors on 5 February, 1964

5. Mr. Azad Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner's date of birth was wrongly recorded in the service record as 8-9-1952, he made application for correction of his date of birth on 3-6-1988 that has wrongly been rejected by Annexure P-5 dated 27-9-1988 which is absolutely illegal and bad in law as by certificate dated 2-10-1999 (part of Annexure P-6), the Head Master of Govt. Primary School, Gelhapani, Distt. Surguja has certified that the petitioner's date of birth entered in the school register is 15-4-1961. The petitioner has also filed affidavit that has not been considered and he has been made to retire on 30-9-2012 on his attaining the age of superannuation on 7-9-2012 holding that his date of birth is 8-9-1952. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the 3 petitioner's date of birth be corrected as 15-4-1961 and he be granted all consequential benefits. Mr. Azad Siddiqui, learned counsel, relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Brij Mohan Singh v. Priya Brat Narain Sinha and others 1 and Mohd. Yunus Khan v. U.P. Power Corporation Limited and others 2 and also the decision of this Court in the matter of Sayyad Yasin v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and others3 to buttress his submission.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 200 - K C Gupta - Full Document

Mohd Yunus Khan vs U.P.Power Corporation Ltd.And Ors on 22 October, 2008

5. Mr. Azad Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner's date of birth was wrongly recorded in the service record as 8-9-1952, he made application for correction of his date of birth on 3-6-1988 that has wrongly been rejected by Annexure P-5 dated 27-9-1988 which is absolutely illegal and bad in law as by certificate dated 2-10-1999 (part of Annexure P-6), the Head Master of Govt. Primary School, Gelhapani, Distt. Surguja has certified that the petitioner's date of birth entered in the school register is 15-4-1961. The petitioner has also filed affidavit that has not been considered and he has been made to retire on 30-9-2012 on his attaining the age of superannuation on 7-9-2012 holding that his date of birth is 8-9-1952. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the 3 petitioner's date of birth be corrected as 15-4-1961 and he be granted all consequential benefits. Mr. Azad Siddiqui, learned counsel, relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Brij Mohan Singh v. Priya Brat Narain Sinha and others 1 and Mohd. Yunus Khan v. U.P. Power Corporation Limited and others 2 and also the decision of this Court in the matter of Sayyad Yasin v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and others3 to buttress his submission.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 37 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Sayyad Yasin vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited 15 ... on 18 May, 2020

5. Mr. Azad Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner's date of birth was wrongly recorded in the service record as 8-9-1952, he made application for correction of his date of birth on 3-6-1988 that has wrongly been rejected by Annexure P-5 dated 27-9-1988 which is absolutely illegal and bad in law as by certificate dated 2-10-1999 (part of Annexure P-6), the Head Master of Govt. Primary School, Gelhapani, Distt. Surguja has certified that the petitioner's date of birth entered in the school register is 15-4-1961. The petitioner has also filed affidavit that has not been considered and he has been made to retire on 30-9-2012 on his attaining the age of superannuation on 7-9-2012 holding that his date of birth is 8-9-1952. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the 3 petitioner's date of birth be corrected as 15-4-1961 and he be granted all consequential benefits. Mr. Azad Siddiqui, learned counsel, relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Brij Mohan Singh v. Priya Brat Narain Sinha and others 1 and Mohd. Yunus Khan v. U.P. Power Corporation Limited and others 2 and also the decision of this Court in the matter of Sayyad Yasin v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and others3 to buttress his submission.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - P P Sahu - Full Document

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. And Ors vs Adya Singh on 20 September, 2016

6. Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents / SECL, would submit that the petitioner's date of birth recorded in the service record and Form B entered in the service record, is 8-9-1952 which is evident from Annexure P-1. He would further submit that the petitioner made representation/application for correction of his date of birth during the course of employment on 3-6- 1988, his representation was referred to the Age Determination Committee and the said Committee has rejected the representation on 27-9-1988 vide Annexure P-5 which he did not call in question while initially filing this writ petition, but later-on, the petitioner amended the writ petition questioning the order dated 27-9-1988. He would also submit that the petition suffers from delay and laches and correctness of that certificate cannot be examined being the writ petition suffers from delay and laches so far as the order Annexure P-5 is concerned. He would contend that the petitioner has relied upon the certificate issued by the Head Master of Govt. Primary School, Gelhapani on 2- 10-1999 stating the petitioner's date of birth as 15-4-1961 which is not the document under Implementation Instruction No.76 which gives the procedure for determination / verification of age of employees and in 1 AIR 1965 SC 282 2 (2009) 1 SCC 80 3 W.A.No.564/2019, decided on 18-5-2020 4 the case of the petitioner, sub-clause (i)(a) of Clause (B) of the said Implementation Instruction which deals with Review determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees, would be applicable. None of the documents earmarked in sub-clause (i)(a) of Clause (B) of Implementation Instruction No.76 has been filed by the petitioner to prove his case, therefore, it cannot be held that his date of birth is 15- 4-1961 and as such, his date of birth has rightly been determined by the Age Determination Committee under Clauses (B), (C) & (D) of Implementation Instruction No.76. Mr. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel, would rely upon the decision of this Court in the matter of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Bilaspur and others v. Adya Singh 4 to buttress his submission.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1