- (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.
(2.) 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 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.;