- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned orders dated 9.5.2006 as well as order dated 5.8.2006 (Annexures 1 and 2 to writ petition) Further issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents to treat petitioner in service up to the age of her superannuation on the basis of age mentioned in the service record. Further a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents to pay her salary month to month as well as arrears from 9.5.2006 till the payment of current salary.
(2.) Petitioner's husband was working as Fitter in the Corporation at Varanasi and died in harness on 2.9.1974 after completing 17 years of service. He was a permanent employee of the Corporation, therefore, petitioner was considered and appointed as part time water boy and thereafter she was given status of daily wager in the year 1979. Subsequently, petitioner was transferred to Account Office of respondent No. 2. Petitioner was directed to deposit various documents and in pursuance of same, petitioner had submitted a certificate dated 11.9.1981 issued by Senior Medical Superintendent S.S.P.G Hospital, Varanasi in which age of petitioner was recorded as 30 years and by appearance about 35 years. Since petitioner did not join any school, therefore, no education certificate was submitted. The said document was accepted by respondents and accordingly, date of birth of petitioner was recorded as 11.9.1949. Subsequently, appointment of petitioner was converted into peon. From 1981 till 9.5.2006, petitioner was never informed regarding any discrepancy or anything in date of birth and order impugned has been passed discharging petitioner from service treating date of birth of petitioner 11.9.1941 and it was alleged that petitioner has wrongly mentioned the said date and manipulated the same. Same allegations upon the clerk was made but petitioner being illiterate lady has nothing to do with the alleged manipulation by respondent. In pursuance of the notice, petitioner has submitted that her date of birth is 11.9.1949 as mentioned in the service record. Petitioner also requested to respondent No. 2 to provide copy of the part of service book in which date of birth of petitioner is alleged to be mentioned as 11.9.1941. Petitioner was not provided the said document and has t been discharged arbitrary without providing any opportunity to petitioner. Hence, present writ petition.
(3.) It has been submitted by learned Counsel for petitioner that from 1981 till 2006, respondents have never informed regarding any manipulation alleged to be done by petitioner in connivance of any of the employee. Further after receipt of show-cause notice petitioner has demanded copy of service book alleging date of birth of petitioner recorded as 11.9.1941. On the basis of direction issued, relevant certificate and regarding prove of age was submitted in the year 1981 and on that basis, date of birth of petitioner was recorded in the service record as 11.9.1949. Therefore, petitioner was entitled to continue on the said post till attaining the age of 60.;