- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to send the petitioner to the Medical Board for ascertaining her age in view of the fact that at the time of her appointment, affidavit filed by the petitioner in respect of her age was not considered, nor recorded in her service book when the service book was opened. Further prayer has been made for quashing the letter no. 1748 dated 1.8.2004 issued under the signature of the General Manager cum Chief Engineer Transmission, Ranchi, whereby the petitioner has been intimated that she would retire from service with effect from 28.2.2005. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she was granted compassionate appointment on regular basis against permanent vacancy after the death of her husband on 23.11.1994. At the time of submission of her application for compassionate appointment, she had submitted a medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer wherein it was confirmed that the age of the petitioner on the date, in the year 1992, was 31 years. The petitioner was all along under the impression that her age mentioned in the affidavit was duly entered in the service book and the same was accordingly maintained. However, to her utter surprise, she was informed through the impugned letter of the General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer that she would retire from service on 28.2.2005. The petitioner then promptly filed her representation before the concerned authority of the respondents praying for correction of the date of birth by sending her for medical examination for the purpose of ascertaining her age. It was in response to the third reminder that the petitioner was informed that her prayer for referring her to medical Board for examination was refused. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed this writ petition in the year 2005.
(3.) SRI A.K.Mishra, leaned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned letter, submits that as per the rules of procedure of the respondents in the matter of maintaining and opening service book of the employees, the service book is required to be opened on the date of appointment granted to the employees. Entries contained in the first page including the date of birth should be recorded in presence of the employee concerned and a Xerox copy of the 1st page has to be supplied to the employee. This procedure, according to the petitioner, was not followed in the case of the petitioner which has been admitted even by the respondents in their counter affidavit. Referring to the relevant paragraphs of the counter affidavit of the respondents, learned counsel would point out that on the date of appointment , admittedly, no service book as opened. It was opened almost one year after her appointment and even then, while all other columns were filled up, the column relating to date of birth was intentionally left out. The date of birth column was subsequently filled up arbitrarily without informing the petitioner and without recording the correct age of the petitioner. Learned counsel argues that the contention of the respondents that the affidavit filed by petitioner in respect of claim of her age was not acceptable on the ground that there were contradictions in each of the affidavits regarding the age, is misconceived and misleading, firstly because in all the three affidavits sworn by her, and which were admittedly submitted by the petitioner, there is consistency as far as the petitioner's age is concerned. Secondly, even according to the rule of procedure relating to the recording of age of an employee, the rule stipulates that the affidavit sworn by the employee would be acceptable. In the petitioner's case, it has not been followed. Referring to annexure E filed by the respondents, learned counsel submits that no reliance can be placed on this document in view of the fact that entries therein were not made by the petitioner herself, since she is admittedly an illiterate lady and the document (Annexure E), which declares her age, contains her thumb impression. Learned counsel concedes however that this writ petition was filed in February 2005 but since the matter could not be taken all along for hearing, no fruitful purpose would be served now by sending the petitioner for the medical examination of her age. Yet, the respondents could be directed to accept her age as declared by the petitioner in her affidavit which she had admittedly submitted before the concerned authority of the respondents in the year 1992, and to allow her all consequential benefits. ;