N YASOTHAI Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records connected with the impugned order, dated 13. 11. 2002, passed by the third respondent and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to continue to engage the petitioner as an unskilled labour till her superannuation on the basis of her date of birth 20. 12. 1954. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows:

(2.) IT is stated that the petitioner was working as a Contract Labour in the Neyveli Lignite Corporation (herein after referred to as the N. L. C.) from the year 1982 to 1990. Subsequently, she was appointed as an unskilled labour in N. L. C. Indco Serve, IND No. 1812, Neyveli 7 on and from 1. 10. 1990. She has been continuously working as such till the date of the filing of the writ petition. On 12. 12. 1999, an interview was conducted by the N. L. C. P and A Department for all the workers including the petitioner to absorb them in the N. L. C.

(3.) THE petitioner was called for a Medical Examination and she was also required to produce her birth certificate. During the Medical Examination, held on 15. 12. 1999, the petitioner had stated that her date of birth was 20. 12. 1954. However, she could secure her birth certificate from the Sub-Registrar of Births and Deaths, Kammapuram, where she was born, only in the month of January, 2000. In the month of November, 2002, she was informed that she would be superannuated, on 31. 12. 2002, as she was completing 58 years of age. Therefore, on 8. 11. 2002, she had made a representation to the first and second respondents stating her actual date of birth and requesting that she should be permitted to continue in service accordingly. The Tahsildar, Virudhachalam, after a due enquiry, had issued proceedings in Na. Ka. No. A4/8726/2002, dated 29. 11. 2002, ordering incorporation of the petitioner's name in the birth certificate and had issued a fresh birth certificate stating that the petitioner's date of birth was 20. 12. 1954. Meanwhile, by an order, dated 13. 11. 2002, the third respondent had informed the first respondent that a list of 10 workers, including the petitioner, who were completing 58 years of age, as on 31. 12. 2002, as per the age assessment carried out by the General Superintendent/medical, N. L. C. , need not be engaged for work, after 31. 12. 2002 A. N. It was taken on file by the second respondent as CM (P) TPS-II, No. 583, dated 20. 11. 2002.