PUTUL DUTTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The present writ petition has been filed praying inter alia :-

(2.) It is stated in details that the petitioner joined the Dairy Development Corporation as a Muster-roll worker on daily wage basis. She was absorbed as Lower Division Clerk in the year 1970. It is alleged that at the time of entry into the Service Book, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 12.12.1934. Since appointment, the petitioner has been discharging her duties and functions diligently, efficiently and sincerely without any dispute from any corner. It is, however, stated that the elder brother of the petitioner affirmed an affidavit in the year 1979 wherein the date of birth of the petitioner was disclosed as 12.12.1934. Besides, in the Horoscope the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 12.12.1934. In the year 1989 the petitioner was asked to submit the Matriculation Certificate and accordingly the petitioner submitted a xerox copy thereof. Again on 18.1.90, the petitioner was asked to produce the original Matriculation Certificate. The petitioner accordingly submitted the original Matriculation Certificate before the authority concerned. On 22.2.91 the petitioner was again asked to produce the original certificate and she was directed to explain why she had altered her date of birth from 11.12.1933 as writted in the P.V. Roll Fort and as shown again in her joining report for Muster-Roll Worker dated 8.10.60. The authorities concerned are alleged to have again asked the petitioner to submit the duplicate Matriculation Certificate from the Calcutta University by 31.7.91. Incidentally, the petitioner applied for non-refundable loan from the P.F. authorities for her medical treatment and the said loan was granted by the Milk Commissioner vide order dated 8.8.91 for Rs. 7,000/-. It would appear from the records that the date of superannuation of the petitioner was 31.12.92 in view of her date of birth being 12.12. 34. The grievance of the petitioner is that since the date of birth of the Petitioner has been recorded as 12.12.1934 in her service book as also in the affidavit sworn by her elder brother corroborated by the entry in the Horoscope, the authorities concerned cannot takes step to compel the petitioner to retire on superannuation on and from 31.12.91. In fact, the petitioner moved an earlier writ petition challenging tile order dated 30.9.91 passed by the Additional Milk Commissioner (Projects and the said petition was disposed of by M. R. Mallick, J. by revoking the impugned order of superannuation dated 30.9.91, holding, inter alia, that the date of birth recorded in the service book cannot be changed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner Pursuant to the order dated 20.12.91, the Milk Commissioner, West Bengal, served a notice upon the petitioner on 7.1.92 directing her to appear before him in his chamber at Writers' Buildings on 13.1.92. The petitioner prayed for two days time as the spectacles of the petitioner was broken. But the petitioner's prayer was rejected and the Milk Commissioner asked some questions to the petitioner and her answers were recorded on some papers. However, by letter dated 20.1.92 the Milk Commissioner, West Bengal, informed the petitioner that the petitioner's date of retirement falls on 31.12.91 and the said date has already expired. The petitioner has again filed the present writ petitioner challenging the impugned orders aS indicated above, on the grounds that the impugned orders are Violative of the principles of natural justice in as much as no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner and the impugned orders determining the age of the petitioner is not in accordance with the provisions of law as envisaged under Rule 9 of the West Bengal Service Rules Part-I. It is asserted that in 1979 when the entry of the date of birth of the petitioner in the service book was recorded to be 12.12.34 on the materials supplied by the petitioner, the same must be treated as valid and justified and the same cannot be reviewed, in the manner as sought for.

(3.) In the instant case the preparation of the Service Book was made in view of Matriculation Certificate, Passport, affidavit and the Horoscope and there is no evidence to the contrary to record the age of the petitioner in any other manner in view of the previous muster-roll while the petitioner was a worker on daily wage basis.