- (1.) THIS petition for writ is directed against the judgment dated January 1, 2013, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, rejecting the Original Application preferred by the petitioner giving challenge to the decision of the respondents to retire her from service w.e.f. 31.10.2010 instead of 31.10.2018. In brief, facts of the case are that an appointment was accorded to the petitioner on 2.8.1991 as Labour on compassionate grounds following death of her husband on 24.8.1990. Her husband Shri Bachan Singh was employed with the respondents as Labour on 6.4.1988 and his date of birth entered in service record was 27.12.1955. The age of the petitioner in form "H" of the service record of Late Shri Bachan Singh was shown as 30 years. At the time of giving appointment to the petitioner she was subjected to a medical test for determination of age and as per the opinion given she was within the age of 25-40 years. It appears that initially the respondents entered age of the petitioner at the time fo her initial appointment as "40 years", but subsequent thereto her date of birth was shown as 24.10.1958 in various service records including GPF-DS statement, Canteen Smart Card, Insurance documents etc. By treating 24.10.1958 as date of birth of the petitioner she was supposed to retire from service on 31.10.2018 being 60 years as the age of superannuation.
(2.) ON 3.6.2010 the respondents sent fresh statement of accounts relating to provident fund for the year 2009-10, showing date of birth of the petitioner as "December, 1950" instead of 24.10.1958. By treating birth of the petitioner in the month of December, 1950 the respondents decided to retire her from service w.e.f. 31.12.2010. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred an Original Application before the Tribunal with assertion that her actual date of birth was 24.10.1958 and that was changed unilaterally by the employer. A reply to the Original Application was filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that at the time of initial appointment, the petitioner was subjected to a medical test, wherein a physical finding was given about her age as above 40 years, hence in service record her age was recorded as 40 years. She also put her right thumb impression on the service record wherein her date of birth was shown as 40 years, as such, there was no change in date of birth, but by treating her age as of 40 years in the year 1990, a decision was taken to retire her from service on attaining the age of 60 years in the month of December, 2010. With regard to mentioning of 24.10.1958 in service record of the petitioner, it was stated that the same appears to have been made at subsequent stage just to get the date of retirement extended by eight years. As per the respondents mentioning of 24.10.1958 as date of birth of the petitioner was nothing but an interpolation made in service record unauthorisedly.
(3.) A medical examination of the petitioner for determination of age was also made on 15.9.2009, wherein her radiological age was shown above and between 45-55 years. The Tribunal after hearing counsel for the parties arrived at the conclusion that as per opinion given by Medical Jurist age of the petitioner was 40 years at the time of her initial appointment and that was unauthorisedly interpolated by referring 24.10.1958, hence the respondents rightly decided to retire the petitioner in the month of December, 2010. Learned Tribunal also arrived at the conclusion that no need was there to provide any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as no change in her date of birth was made by the respondents, but an interpolation was made to avail unauthorised extension of service term.;