L RAVINDRAN Vs. P SUNDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 2. 8. 2005 made in Contempt Petition No. 955 of 2004 holding that the appellant had wilfully disobeyed the orders of the Court and thus, committed contempt and thereby, imposing a punishment to pay Rs. 2,000/- within one week from that date, viz. , 2. 8. 2005, failing which, the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. THE respondent has preferred the above contempt petition for the alleged wilful default of the order dated 12. 7. 2004 made in W. P. No. 37990 of 2003, which was filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent therein, who is the appellant in this appeal, dated 24. 11. 2003, to quash the same and to direct the respondents therein to regularise the services of the petitioner therein.

(2.) 1. The brief facts of the case are: The respondent herein was appointed as a Sweeper on temporary basis in the year 1990 in the appellant Society, after the demise of her husband in the Neyveli Lignite Corporation, pursuant to an agreement between the Corporation and the appellant Society. At the time of regularisation of services, the respondent, who opted for the same, was called for an interview and during medical test conducted on 18. 12. 1999, as the respondent was not having Certificate of Birth as registered in the local bodies evidencing her date of birth, she produced a certificate issued by the assistant Civil Surgeon, District Head Quarter's Hospital, Cuddalore, certifying that she was aged 44 years as on 1. 2. 2000. Since the medical test revealed her age as 55 years as on 1. 1. 2000, the appellant Society passed an order dated 13. 11. 2002 retiring the respondent on superannuation with effect from 31. 12. 2002. 2. 2. Pursuant to the above order, the respondent submitted a representation enclosing the certificate dated 24. 12. 2002 issued by the Corporation of Chennai, to prove that her date of birth is 30. 10. 1956. On the basis of the said representation, she was again sent for medical examination and the Medical Board, by proceedings dated 20. 1. 2003, certified her age as 57 years as on 31. 12. 2002. After receiving the same, the respondent again submitted a representation bringing to the notice of the appellant herein the Certificate of Birth issued by the Corporation of Chennai on 24. 12. 2002, certifying her date of birth as 30. 10. 1956. As no orders were passed in the said representation, the respondent has filed the writ petition. 2. 3. This Court, on considering the above facts, by order dated 12. 7. 2004, disposed of the writ petition as follows:- "hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider the request of the petitioner as to the age with reference to the certificate issued by the Corporation of chennai dated 24. 12. 2002. " 2. 4. Pursuant to the above order, the appellant Society, while considering the request of the respondent as to the age with reference to the certificate issued by the Corporation of Chennai, rejected the same by proceedings dated 17. 8. 2004 and ordered that the respondent is due to retire on superannuation on attainment of 58 years of age as on 31. 12. 2003. The relevant portions of the above order read as follows:- " (iv) The Medical board of NLC General Hospital , after a proper examination and assessment of her age, communicated through their letter dated 23. 2. 2001 that her age was 55 years as on 1. 1. 2000. Although, she produced a certificate from an Assistant Civil Surgeon of the District Head Quarters Hospital , Cuddalore, subsequently, certifying that her age was 44 years as on 1. 2. 2000, it could not be accepted by the Society as she adopted the course of action on her own accord independent of the Society and in contravention of the Society's standing Orders. As such, the Society passed an order dated 13. 11. 2002 retiring her on superannuation with effect from 31. 12. 2002 in line with Section 35 of the Standing Orders of the Society. But she submitted a representation dated 28. 12. 2002 stating that she was only 46 years of age as on 31. 12. 2002 and prayed for reassessment of her age and once again vouched that she would abide by whatever the Medical result was. The Society though was well within its rights to reject such request, with a view to afford one more opportunity in terms of S. O. 5. 2 referred under her letter dated 27. 12. 2002 to the District medical Officer, Government Hospital, Cuddalore, for assessment of her age. After the Medical Test, the Medical Board of the Government Head Quarters Hospital , cuddalore, declared Smt. P. Sundari's age as 57 years as on 31. 12. 2002. (v) Under these circumstances Smt. P. Sundari produced a certificate of Birth issued by the Corporation of Chennai dated 24. 12. 2002 stating that her date of birth was 30. 10. 56. As this was totally a belated action on her part, the Society, which followed only the procedures laid down in its Standing Orders, came to the conclusion that the age as assessed by the medical Board of the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Cuddalore, shall hold good in respect of Smt. P. Sundari. Further more, as per a Certificate of Birth issued as far back as 4. 4. 75 by the Corporation of Madras in respect of her second child (copy enclosed), who was born on 28. 10. 69, the age of the mother of the child, Smt. P. Sundari, against column 8 (b) was indicated as 20. Whereas, in the Certificate of Birth dated 24. 12. 2002 issued to Smt. P. Sundari by the very same Corporation of Chennai, her date of birth is given as 30. 10. 56. Further, the absence of the name of the child born in 1969 in the Birth certificate dated 4. 4. 75, and the inclusion of the name of the child born on 30. 10. 56 in the Certificate dated 24. 12. 2002 gives a bonafide reasonable suspicion as to the genuineness of the latter. As such, the contradiction in respect of her age is exposed beyond doubt from these two Certicates issued by the same agency which only renders that the Certificate dated 24. 12. 2002 cannot be relied upon as a conclusive proof of her age.

(3.) IN that view of the matter, we do not see any wilful disobedience on the part of the appellant, much less, disobedience, as complained by the respondent for the alleged non implementation of the order dated 12. 7. 2004 made in W. P. No. 37990 of 2003, as viewed by the learned single judge. Accordingly, the Contempt Appeal is allowed. No costs. .