S. S. Sodhi, J. - (1.) THE matter here arises from the attempt on the part of the appellant to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court with regard to change in her date of birth-seeking to have it declared that she was born about five years later than the date mentioned in her service record-And that too, on the verge of her retirement from Government service.
(2.) THE appellant, Smt. Subhashini Jyoti Masih was a Midwife working as such in a Government Hospital. She bad been appointed to this post on June 20, 1960. According to her Service Book her date of birth was July 1, 1993, which is also the date mentioned in her certificate of registration as a Midwife. She now claims, on the basis of her Junior High School Examination Certificate, that her correct date of birth was July 1, 1938 and not July 1, 1933, meaning thereby that her retirement should come in 1996 and not in 1991. It is now well settled that the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, is not an appropriate Forum for adjudication of disputed questions of fact pertaining to the date of birth of employees. The learned Single Judge, therefore, rightly declined to do so. The retirement of the appellant was then sought to be questioned on the plea that the order retiring her from service had been passed by an authority lower in rank than her appointing authority. This is indeed a contention to be noticed merely for its ingenuity rather substance. According to the Service Rules governing the appellant, her retirement was to follow her attaining the age of superannuation. No formal order of retirement was either prescribed nor was thus necessary. What counsel sought to brand as "The order of retirement" was merely an intimation to inform the appellant that she would be retiring on the date specified therein. The contention raised was, thus, clearly wholly devoid of merit.
(3.) AS a measure of last resort, a point was sought to be taken for the first time in Special Appeal here which does not even figure in the grounds of appeal, that the age of retirement of the appellant was not 58 years, but 60 years. Counsel could, however, cite no rule or regulation prescribing 60 years as the age of retirement. It will, thus be seen that this Special Appeal is singularly lacking in merit and has consequently to be dismissed as such. Appeal dismissed.;