Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 591 (JHR)

Saraswati Devi v. Damodar Valley Corporation

2001-08-23

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2001
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The husband of petitioner. Late Avinash Prasad was in the services of respondents Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC for short). He died in harness, whereinafter the petitioner was given appointment as Messenger on compassionate ground. 2. While the petitioner was functioning there appears to be a dispute cropped up relating to her date of birth and for the said reason, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition for direction on the respondents to immediately and forthwith send her entire service record for its verification and finalisation. She has also sought for a declaration that her date of birth is 24th May, 1950 and thereby be allowed to continue in service upto 60 years i.e. upto 24th May, 2010. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Respondent. Personnel Manager (A), Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, DVC, issued an Office Order No. 2449 dated 11th August, 2000, circulating the retirement forecast for the year 2001. Therein, the name of petitioner has been reflected at Sl. No. 51, showing her date of retirement as 31st August, 2001. In the circumstances, the petitioner has challenged the said Office Order dated 11th August, 2000 by filing amendment petition being I.A. No. 927 of 2001. 4. According to the petitioner, she was intimated by Respondent No. 6, Senior Personnel Manager, CTPS. DVC Chandrapura that the date of birth of petitioner was accepted as 23rd February, 1941 as per first Medical Certificate, as was issued by the Medical Officer Incharge, CTPS, Hospital, vide letter dated 17th July, 1973. The petitioner on receipt of such letter, replied on 20th June. 1998 and brought to the notice of the D.G.M. (Administration). CTPS, DVC, Chandrapura that she was sent for medical examination which assessed her date of birth as 23rd August, 1941, but advised her to submit necessary educational certificates in support of her correct date of birth. In the aforesaid background, she collected SLC from the native village, wherein her date of birth was shown as 24th May, 1950, which was accepted by the authorities and thereafter all the records viz. Medical Treatment Book, Service Book. Gate Pass etc. were corrected showing her date of birth as 24th May, 1950. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that once on the basis of SLC. Her date of birth having accepted as 24th May, 1950 and such date having recorded in the Medical Treatment Book. Medical Treatment Book, Service Book. Gate Pass etc. were corrected showing her date of birth as 24th May, 1950. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that once on the basis of SLC. Her date of birth having accepted as 24th May, 1950 and such date having recorded in the Medical Treatment Book. Service Book, Gate Pass etc., the respondents could not have revert back to the report of the Medical Board, wherein 23rd August, 1941 was the date of birth wrongly shown. The counsel relied on the SLC enclosed as Annexure 1 to suggest that it was issued on 31st October, 1964 i.e. much prior to her appointment. Relevant copies of the Medical Treatment and Booklet have also been enclosed to suggest that the petitioners date of birth was accepted as 24th May. 1950 in terms with the SLC and that was acted upon by the authorities. 6. The respondents in their counter affidavit while accepted that the husband of petitioner Late Avinash Prasad was working in the DVC as Technician Grade-III (Electrical) at CPTS and having died in 1973, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground, have taken plea that the date of birth of petitioner was recorded not only on the basis of the medical report but the other documents, namely. Contributory Provident Fund Scheme etc. which were also taken into consideration to issue order dated 11th August, 2000. The Medical Board on assessment of petitioners age, recorded it as 32 years as on 31st August, 1973 which, on calculation, comes to 23rd August, 1941. The petitioner also signed the descriptive roll filled up by some person who was aware of English language wherein her date of birth was written as 1st September, 1941. Subsequently, the column of date of birth which was initially inserted to be 1941 was scored off and in its place, it was inserted as 24.5.1950 (School Leaving Certificate). The respondents have also enclosed certain other documents to disbelieve the date of birth as shown in the so-called School Leaving Certificate, like Family Pension records, wherein the petitioner disclosed her date of birth as 1st September, 1942. The petitioner also gave her specimen signature concerning family members of late Avinash Prasad, wherein she disclosed her date of birth to be 1st September, 1942. 7. The petitioner also gave her specimen signature concerning family members of late Avinash Prasad, wherein she disclosed her date of birth to be 1st September, 1942. 7. The copy of Contributory Provident Fund of her husband Late Avinash Prasad has been enclosed, wherein the age of the wife petitioner herein shown as 23 years as on 1st September, 1965. In the form of application (Family Pension Scheme, 1964), the petitioner put her thumb impression and recorded her date of birth as 1st September, 1942 A.D. 8. From the facts aforesaid, it will be evident that the petitioner and even her husband, all the time shown the date of birth of petitioner as 1st September, 1941 or 1st September, 1942 and she never claim her date of birth as 24th May, 1950. 9. In the circumstances, there being disputed question relating to date of birth, this court is not inclined to grant any relief, as sought for. 10. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. Writ petition dismissed.