Giani Devi v. Punjab State Water Resources Management and Development

Judgment

1. The petitioner has approached this court impugning the order dated 31.8.2012, whereby she has been ordered to be retired from service on completion of the age of 60 years.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that date of birth recorded in the service book of the petitioner is 29.3.1953. Accordingly, the petitioner would have attained the age of 60 years on 29.3.2013. In terms of the service rules, she is to retire on 31.3.2013, but without there being any reason and issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner, she has been retired on 31.8.2012.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner in the present case was appointed on compassionate basis. At the time of entry into service, she had filled up a form for her medical examination, where as per her own statement, she was 34 years of age in the year 1986. By appearance also, she looked like that. She had produced a certificate dated 7.4.1986 issued by Pardhan, Gram Sabha Dhakhi Lagonv (Maniar), District Chamba stating that the date of C.W.P. No. 17265 of 2012 [2] birth of the petitioner is 9.8.1952, as mentioned in Part one in Gram Sabha family register. There is another certificate on record dated 20.3.1986 issued by Pardhan, Gram Sabha Dhakhi Lagonv (Maniar), District Chamba certifying that the petitioner is widow of late Mangal Singh. She is aged 34 years and has three children, the details of which were given in the certificate. The original thereof is available on record. However, a carbon copy thereof was produced with some interpolation giving the date of birth of the petitioner as well in that certificate as 29.3.1953, with her age as 34 years. It was on the basis of the aforesaid forged certificate produced by the petitioner that her date of birth was wrongly recorded in the record. She was rightly retired on 31.8.2012 after attaining the age of 60 years. Learned counsel further submitted that the conduct of the petitioner is evident from the fact that in 2010, she filed an application claiming that in fact, her date of birth is 10.3.1957, but no document in support thereof was produced despite giving her a notice to that effect. When the record was perused, it was found that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 9.8.1952, as is evident from the certificate in original available on record.

4. In response to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an illiterate lady. She cannot be accused of forging any document. She had produced on record the correct certificate showing her date of birth on the basis of which the same was recorded in the service book. She cannot be made to suffer at the fag end of her service career without affording an opportunity of hearing.

5. book.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper No doubt, in the service book, date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 29.3.1953. The claim of the petitioner is that in fact, her date of birth as recorded in the service book is correct and she has been wrongly retired on 31.8.2012 by taking her date of birth as 9.8.1952. Another fact, which is on record is that later on before her retirement, the petitioner filed an application seeking correction of her date of birth as

10.3.1957. Meaning thereby that the petitioner is not happy with her date of C.W.P. No. 17265 of 2012 [3] birth as recorded in the service book as 29.3.1953. There being disputed questions of facts, the petitioner could not invoke the writ jurisdiction. However, still considering the material from the record in original produced before this court and to avoid multiplicity of litigation, this court is proceeding to consider the case on merits.

7. It is a case in which husband of the petitioner died during service. The petitioner was appointed on compassionate basis. She joined service in 1986. At the time of joining into government service, her medical examination was conducted in the year 1986, where she herself stated that her age is 34 years, which goes back to the year 1952, as the year of birth. It is recorded in the medical examination by the Board (Annexure R-1) that even by appearance, her age seems to be 34 years. A certificate in original issued by Pardhan, Gram Sabha Dhakhi Lagonv (Maniar), District Chamba dated 7.4.1986 (Annexure R-2) is on record with the respondents, wherein it has been certified that as per the record available in Gram Sabha family register, the date of birth of the petitioner is 9.8.1952. There is another certificate dated 20.3.1986 (Annexure R-3) in original on record with the respondents, which certifies that the petitioner aged 34 years is widow of late Mangal Singh and she has three children, the details of which are given in the certificate. The same is extracted below: “ CERTIFICATE This is to certify that Smt. Giani Devi is the wife of late Sh. Mangal Singh. Her age is of 34 years. She has three children, as per the details given below:

1. Narender Singh

2. Kumari Santosh

3. Dhirendar Singh 10 years 7 years 5 years I, certify that as per the position given above the wife of late Sh. Mangal Singh has three children. Sd/- Patwari Halqua Chamba (Maniar)

3.4.1986 C.W.P. No. 17265 of 2012 [4] Sd/- Pardhan 20.3.1986 Pardhan, Gram Sabha Dhakhi Lagonv (Maniar) District Chamba (Tehri Garhwal)”

8. There is a carbon copy of the same certificate available on file (Annexure R-4) duly signed by Pardhan of the Gram Sabha, in which there is interpolation, where the name of the petitioner has also been mentioned at Sr. No. 4 stating her age to be 34 years and date of birth as 29.3.1953. The same is extracted hereunder: “ CERTIFICATE This is to certify that Smt. Giani Devi is the wife of late Sh. Mangal Singh. Her age is of 34 years. She has three children, as per the details given below:

1. Narender Singh 10 years

12.9.1976

2. Kumari Santosh 7 years

23.5.1979

3. Dhirendar Singh 5 years

1.11.1981

4. Smt. Giani Devi 34 years

29.3.1953 I, certify that as per the position given above the wife of late Sh. Mangal Singh has three children. Sd/- Patwari Halqua Chamba (Maniar)

3.4.1986 Sd/- Pardhan 20.3.1986 Pardhan, Gram Sabha Dhakhi Lagonv (Maniar) District Chamba (Tehri Garhwal)”

9. A bare look at the certificate shows that there is interpolation of name of the petitioner in the certificate. The manner in which the name C.W.P. No. 17265 of 2012 [5] of the petitioner has been added in the certificate, the same does not go with the language of the certificate as it is supposed to contain the details of three children, which the petitioner is having. Her age is already mentioned as 34 years. If her age is considered in terms of the date of birth given in the aforesaid carbon copy of the certificate, the same shall be 33 years and not 34 years, as is mentioned in the certificate.

10. As is evident from the facts, the petitioner may have continued in service till March, 2013 in terms of the date of birth recorded in her service book, but she was apparently not able to digest the benefit of the wrong date of birth which could be available to her and filed an application dated 24.5.2010 seeking change of her date of birth from 29.3.1953 to

10.5.1957. When the record was examined at that time, it was found that even as per the certificate in original on record, the correct date of birth of the petitioner was 9.8.1952 and what was recorded in the service book was on the basis of a forged certificate. The same was corrected and the petitioner was accordingly retired. Even a show cause notice issued to the petitioner to submit explanation or documents in support of her claim for change of date of birth as 10.3.1957 was not satisfactorily responded to. Hence, in my opinion, no illegality has been committed by the respondents in retiring the petitioner on 31.8.2012, on attaining the age of superannuation as per correct date of birth.

11. As far as the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding affording her an opportunity of hearing is concerned, suffice to state that firstly when the petitioner had sought change of her date of birth even from 29.3.1953 to 10.3.1957, a notice was issued to her on

23.12.2010, which was not satisfactorily replied with convincing proof. As the record in original was produced before the court, which was even shown to the counsel for the petitioner and finding that there cannot be any possible explanation against the record in original available, this court granted opportunity to the petitioner to explain the position instead of referring the matter back to the authorities, as grant of opportunity of hearing is not merely a ritual to be performed. The matter could be referred back if the petitioner was able to show prima facie case in her favour and C.W.P. No. 17265 of 2012 [6] the prejudice suffered. This court, being satisfied with the record available in original with the respondents justifying the action taken by them, does not find that the matter is required to be referred back to the authorities for re-consideration.

12. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed.

31.10.2012 (Refer to Reporter) (Rajesh Bindal) Judge