Smt. Phuljhariya vs The State of M.P.

Rajendra Menon, J.—This petition was originally presented before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal as an application u/s 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act and after winding up of Tribunal, matter stands transferred to this Court. Challenging her retirement which was effected on 30.6.2002 by treating her to have attained the age of superannuation, petitioner has filed this petition.

Facts in brief goes to show that petitioner''s husband was working in the office of Joint Director, Public Instructions, Rewa at Bhrity and died in harness on 25.8.1992. Petitioner made an application for grant of compassionate appointment and therefore, vide order dated 30.9.94, petitioner was granted compassionate appointment vide order Annexure A/1. At the time of granting her compassionate appointment based on certain affidavits and documents produced by the petitioner her Date of Birth was recorded in the service book as 15.6.1940 and based on the same, she has been retired on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 62 years on 30th June, 2002. Now petitioner claims that in a Medical Certificate issued to her vide Annexure A/4 it is indicated that she was 50 years of age in the year 1994 and accordingly, she contends that she should retired only in the year 2006 and not in the year 2002. Accordingly placing reliance on this Medical Certificate relief is sought for.

Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate invites my attention to the affidavit and particulars of the petitioner as are entered into in the service book and points out that petitioner is an illiterate person and when she submitted her application for compassionate appointment on 26.4.94 she submitted an affidavit Annexure R/1 along with application wherein her date of birth is shown as 15.6.1940. Accordingly she was appointed and her service book R/2 was prepared wherein her date of birth was entered as 15.6.1940 and petitioner has affixed her signature and thumb impression as a token of acceptance and based on the date of birth recorded in the service book, impugned action is taken.

Accordingly, Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate submits that now no indulgence into the matter is called for.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is clear that in the service book of the petitioner her Date of Birth is entered as ''15.6.1940'' and the said entry is based on the affidavit Annexure R/1 submitted by the petitioner herself in the year 1994 at the time of seeking compassionate appointment and the petitioner herself declared her Date of Birth as ''15.6.1940''. That being so, petitioner is now estopped from going back on the statement made by her with regard to date of birth at the time of appointment. That apart, Medical Certificate Annexure A/4 is not a medical certificate based on scientific medical examination. It is only a physical fitness certificate of the petitioner wherein in a casual manner without any scientific examination, the age of petitioner is shown as 50 years in the year 1994. The said document cannot be considered to be a authentic document as proof for determining the age or date of birth of the petitioner.

Accordingly, when the petitioner herself admitted her Date of Birth to be ''15.6.1940'' and the said date was entered in the service book and now after her retirement she cannot be permitted to change her stand. Accordingly, finding no error in the action taken by the respondents for retiring the petitioner, this petition is dismissed.