- (1.) R. B. Misra, J. Heard Sri Jitendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sandeep Mukherjee, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
(2.) IN this petition prayer has been made to quash the order dated 28-6-1994 ( Annexure-11 to the writ petition) compulsorily retiring the petitioner on completing the age of 58 years i. e. on the age of superannuation on 30-6-1994 on the ground that when she joined service in the year 1990, her date of birth was 1-7-1936. According to the certificate dated 24-5-1993 given by Chief Medical Officer, Aligarh on estimation of her physical appearance, her age 50 years on 24-5-1993 was estimated i. e. ,47 years at the time of joining service. The petitioner is disputing the date of birth with the support of voter list subsequently obtained and on the estimated date of birth obtained by Chief Medical Officer and denying the date of birth as 1-7-1936 as disclosed by her at the time of claiming the post retiral benefit like pension, gratuity, general provident fund, group insurance, encashment of earned leave of her deceased husband. Counter affidavit has been filed which indicates that petitioner has not passed high school and the date of birth revealed by her as 1-7-1936 was entered into service book and the same was duly verified and she was given post retiral benefit in terms of Government Order dated 10-7-1990. she was to be above 18 years of age and was to be passed 8th class pass for getting appointment to the Class-IV post. On her representation the State Government had made relaxation in the age prescribed in reference to the educational qualifications, and by virtue of such relaxation, she was given appointment in the year 1990 under the Deputy Director of Agriculture Aligarh treating the date of birth as 1-7-1936, after completing 58 years of age of superannuation the petitioner was retired w. e. f. 30-6-1994 by the order issued on 28-6-1994 (Annexure-11) which is the impugned order in the present writ petition.
(3.) ACCORDING to the respondent the disputed date of birth cannot be adjudicated upon in the writ petition and the estimation of date of birth made by the Chief Medical Officer on the estimation of physical presence is not a final. In (2003) 1 UPLBEC 280, Bimlesh Sharma v. Electricity Board, Office of Chief Engineer, U. P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad, Moradabad and others, where date of birth entered in the service book was to be changed by the wife of the deceased employee when the husband of the writ petitioner had died after retirement by disputing the change of date of birth. This Court has held disputed question of fact cannot be investigated in the writ petition and the date of birth once entered in the service book of the petitioner under U. P. Recruitment to service (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974, was treated to be correct supported by the relevant documents and supporting entries in the service book and the change of the date of birth disputing the same on the basis of fitness certificate were not treated to be relevant proof of age and such controversy and disputed question of fact could not be resolved by investigating the authenticity of the documents relied upon by the parties concerned in the writ proceedings.;