MOHAMMAD RAFIQ J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with two prayers; first prayer is that respondents be directed to treat 25.4.1946 as her date of birth and on that basis superannuate her on attaining the age of 60 years; second is that they be directed to implement judgment passed by this Court in DBCWP No.1681/1980 dated 3.7.1987 and give her posting on the post of Dai in Pay Scale No.2 in the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1976. 2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that 25.4.1946 is the date of her birth entered in the record of State Insurance Department. The Class-IV employees working in SMS Hospital vide letter dated 20.12.1983 and another letter dated 27.1.1984 were required to submit their actual date of birth. Petitioner filed affidavit to this effect on 7.12.1994, which was duly attested by Notary Public yet, the respondents have illegally taken 25.4.1936 as the date of her birth and retired her on that basis. It is contended that if 25.4.1936 accepted the date of birth of petitioner, she would be over age as on the date of initial appointment thus making her initial appointment itself irregular. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of Division Bench allowing earlier her writ petition whereby respondents were directed to give her posting on the post of Dai in the pay scale No.2 of Revised Pay ScaleRules 1976, but so far they have not complied with that judgment. It is, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be allowed in terms prayed for. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that petitioner had already given affidavit on 7.6.1984 in which she clearly stated that 25.4.1936 is her date of birth and on that basis petitioner retired from service w.e.f. 30.4.1996. She is now not in service now. It was submitted that there was no specific direction issued and direction as such was that case of petitioner should be considered for the purpose of posting as Dai, if the post of Dai is vacant or if such post is vacant in future, and if possible she may be considered. No post is vacant, therefore, she could not be accommodated. Having considered the arguments and perused the material on record, I find that there are two contradictory statements that her date of birth is 25.4.1946 and she has now given this version when she has completed 60 years on 30.4.1996. In any case, it is a contentious issue with regard to her date of birth. It is trite law that such contentious issue ought not to be normally entertained in the extra ordinary scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India and civil suit is held to be appropriate remedy of dispute of that nature. I, therefore, decline to entertain this controversy in a writ petition. Regarding posting of petitioner as Dai, I find that Division Bench while deciding earlier writ petition of petitioner merely observed that petitioner should be considered for the purpose of posting on the post of Dai in Pay Scale No.2 in the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1976 if a post of Dai is lying vacant or as when such post falls vacant in future. That judgment was passed on 3.7.1987 and petitioner stood retired on 30.4.1996. Respondents did have not any vacant post of Dai and, therefore, did not post the petitioner as Dai. Petitioner herself admitted in para No.3 of writ petition that on her request, instead of transfer, she can be accommodated on the post of Class-IV at Jaipur. She was on request posted in Janana Hospital, Jaipur. In the circumstances, no relief can possibly be granted on that count. In the result, this writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.;