SHANTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. B. Misra, J. Heard Sri Amit Singh holding brief of Sri Dev Raj learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Raj Kumar and Sri Deepak Sharma learned Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) IT appears that the petitioner was appointed as a Class IV employee (Dai) in the department of Medical Health and Family Planning and the petitioner is not a High School pass, however his date of birth entered as 18th February, 1935 in the service book was verified time and again by the authorities concerned and the age of retirement of the petitioner an employee of Class IV category as 60 years. The petitioner was to be retired on 18th February, 1995. For the reasons unknown on 3rd April, 1991 the Medical Officer of Primary Health Centre Chandak, District Bijnor has asked the petitioner to give a proof of her date of birth and the petitioner was required to be examined by the Chief Medical Officer. Consequent upon the examination,the Chief Medical Officer, Bijnor estimated age of the petitioner on 3-4-1991 as about 60 years. Taking into consideration of this medical certificate the petitioner was made to retire on 30th April, 1991. At subsequent stage out of wisdom, on the representation and undertaking (Annexure-4) of the petitioner, the petitioner was taken back into the service on 27-5-1994 in reference to her undertaking that she had not worked for 22 months, therefore, she will not claim now and in future the salary for that period on the ground of ethics.

(3.) IN (2003)1 UPLBEC 280, Bimlesh Sharma v. Electricity Board, Office of Chief Engineer, U. P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad, Moradabad and others, where date of birth entered in the service book was to be changed by the deceased employee wife when the husband of the writ petitioner had died after retirement by disputing the change of date of birth. This Court has held disputed question of fact cannot be investigated in the writ petition and the date of birth once entered in the service book of the petitioner under U. P. Recruitment to Service (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974, was treated to be correct supported by the relevant documents and supporting entires in the service book and the change of the date of birth disputing the same on the basis of fitness certificate were not treated to be relevant proof of age and such controversy and disputed question of fact could not be resolved by investigating the authenticity of the documents relied upon by the parties concerned in the writ proceedings.