ANIMA SAHA Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of superannuation of the petitioner to be effective on the 30th September, 1992. The petitioner joined service as a senior staff nurse in Durgapur Steel Plant under the respondent no. 1 the Steel Authority of India on the 25teh May, 1959. At the time of joining the service she declared her date of birth as 30th September, 1935. According to that date of birth she has to retire on the 30the September, 1993, but by notice dated 31-12-91 which is " annexure-G to the writ petition steps were taken by the Steel Authority of India to Superannuate her on the 30th September, 1992. It is the case of the petitioner that in support of the declaration made by her at the time of entering the service she also submitted an affidavit affirmed by her uncle on the 30the november, 1960 declaring the date of her birth as 30the September 1935 as her parents were dead at that time. The petitioner passed the Matriculation examination of the University of Calcutta is 1949 and Annexure - A to the writ petition is the xerox copy of her Matriculation certificate granted by the University of Calcutta in 1949. She passed the Matriculation examination as a private candidate. The Matriculation certificate however does not show her age and the gaps in the certificate meant for entering the age are crossed. whatever may be reason as to why the gaps meant for entering the age in the matriculation certificate have been crossed, the fact remains that no age of the petitioner has been mentioned in her Matriculation certificate. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that at the relevant time it was the practice of the University of Calcutta not to record the age of female students in their Matriculation certificates. It is evident that the necessity of furnishing affidavit in support of the declaration of the date of birth of the petitioner arose obviously because the Matriculation certificate of the petitioner did not record her age. Annexure B to the writ petition is the xerox copy of the affidavit affirmed by Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee, the uncle of the petitioner declaring that the date of birth of the petitioner was 30the September, 1935.

(2.) IT is the case of petitioner that upto 1977 there was no problem but in that year it became necessary for her to obtain a certificate about the date of her birth recorded in the office record in connection with her Life Insurance proposal and accordingly she made an application before the respondents no. 2, the General Manager (P), Durgapur Steel Plant in this regard when she was asked by the Authority to appear before the medical board for verification of her age/date of birth. It seems that she appeared before the medical board under protest. Annexure-D to the writ petition is a representation dated 26th february, 1977 in the matter wherein she recited that at the time of joining her service as staff nurse in 1959 she declared her date of birth as 30th September, 1935 in the Declaration Form and also referred to the affidavit sworn in the matter in 1960 in support of her date of birth. She also stated in her representation that she would appear before the medical board as an obedient employee but any difference with or deviation from the date of birth declared by her and supported by affidavit would not be acceptable to her. By a letter dated the 22nd March, 1977 which is a part of Annexure-E to the writ petition, the petitioner was informed by the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Durgapur steel Plant that her age had been assessed at 42 years 6 months on 3rd March, 1977 by the Special Medical Board and accordingly her date of birth had been recorded as falling on 3rd September 1934. Now. giving effect to the said assessed date of birth the Authority concerned has fixed her date of superannuation as the 30th September, 1992. It is the petitioner's case that after receiving the said information about the assessment of her date of birth from the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, she submitted a representation to the general Manager (P), Durgapur Steel Plant, a xerox copy of which is a part of annexure-E to the date of her birth. It is the contention of the petitioner that inspite of her such objection and representation against the assessment of age communicated by the Deputy Chief Medical Officer the notice of her superannuation has been issued now without giving her any opportunity of hearing. It is also the contention of the petitioner that all the doctors were not present in the medical board and by mere physical verification age has been assessed taking into consideration that the petitioner could not have passed the matriculation examination at the age of about. 14 years. Indeed it has been submitted by the learned Advocate for the respondents that if the petitioner's declaration about her date of birth is line she seems to have appeared in the matriculation examination at the age of 13 years 6 months which it is difficult to believe. In my opinion that is only a probability aspect of the matter and it is not unknown that some students prosecute their studies at a comparatively early age which might have been the case with the petitioner.

(3.) IT is also the case of the petitioner that accepting the date of birth declared by her and supported by affidavit the Authority concerned issued her identity Card showing her date of birth as 30th September, 1935 which is annexure-C to the writ petition. The respondents on the other hand have relied on the age verification certificate of the medical board which form part of the Annexure-A to the affidavit -in- opposition. The said verification certificate appears to have been signed on 3rd March, 1977 by three Medical Officers of three different departments, namely, Dentistry, Surgery and Radiology. It is stated in the said certificate that in the opinion of the said Medical Officers the 'present age' of the petitioner appeared to be 42 years 6 months or, the 3rd march, 1977. The date of birth, if calculated on that basis, falls on the 3rd march, 1934. Now one of the questions raised on behalf of the petitioner is whether it is possible to say, with any degree of precision, the exact age of an adult person on any particular date even by ossification test. It is however submitted that in this case no ossification test of the petitioner was done and her age was assessed only by visual appreciation and that too, not by all the medical officers whose signatures appears m the assessment certificate. It is the contention of the respondents on the other hand that in the Leave Travel concession application filed in the year 1970 the petitioner stated her age as 30 years (which however supports nobody's case) and again in an application for advance for purchase of motor vehicle in 1985 she stated her date of birth as 3rd September, 1934 (vide annexures B and C respectively to the affidavit-in-opposition ). In her affidavit -in- reply the petitioner has stated that in the leave Travel Concession application her age was stated by mistake but in the application for advance for purchase of motor vehicle she originally recorded her date of birth as 3rd September, 1935 but the Authority refused to accept the application and accordingly she had to file another application in proper form incorporating her date of birth as 3rd September, 1934 on being compelled to do so else her application would not have been accepted.