- (1.) HEARD Mr. M.K. Laik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents and with their consent this appeal is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.2.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition being WPC No. 1789/2002. The impugned order read as under : 'Heard the parties. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for quashing of Annexure -3 to the writ application i.e. the notice dated 7.1.2002 issued by M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited to the petitioner whereby she was informed that she would be attaining the age of 60 years on 1.7.2002, therefore, she would retire from the service with effect from 30.6.2002, as per the provisions of NCWA -VI. The claim of the petitioner that her age according to the respondents themselves at the time of her appointment, was only 30 years, therefore, she is being wrongly compelled to retire from the service before her due date of retirement. In view of the decisions in the case of State of U.P. and Ors. v. Gullaichi (Smt.), reported in 2003 (6) SCC 483 and also the decision in the case of 2003 JLJR. the dispute of this nature cannot be decided in the writ applica -, tion by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India and,.therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. However, if so advised, the petitioner may approach the appropriate forum for redressal of her grievance.' The appellant, while in service, received the impugned letter dated' 7.1.2002 issued by the respondents informing her that she has to retire with effect from 30.6.2002. She immediately approached this Court by filing writ petition on 15.3.2002 challenging the aforesaid letter. The petitioner - appellant very categorically stated that she was appointed as permanent General Mazdoor on 20.6.1973 and at the time of her ap -. pointment her date of birth was mentioned in the statutory Form B Register as 23 years in 1975. In other words, her date of birth was recorded as 1.7.1952. She further stated that she was served with service excerpt showing her date of birth as 23 years in 1975. A copy of the service except was Annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ application. The petitioner -appellant also Annexed the identity card issued by the respondents showing her date of birth as 23 years in 1975. The specific case of the petitioner, therefore, is that she is to retire after attaining the age of 60 years i.e. in 2012.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge relied upon the decision in the case of State of U.P. and Ors. v. Gullaichi (Smt.), reported in 2003 (6) SCC 483 and held that the dispute of this nature cannot be decided in a writ petition.;