DEEPALI DEBNATH Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAHANADI COALFIELD LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition involves challenge to the order of the opposite party-company vide Annexure-4 therein intimating the petitioner that she was to attain the age of superannuation on 31.12.2003 and as a consequence, she was to retire / superannuate from service w.e.f. afternoon of 31.12.2003.

(2.) Short background involved in the case is that the petitioner being an employee under the Superintendent of Mines / Manager, Ballarpur Colliery, which was under the western coalfield limited, in the year 1979 the petitioner was transferred from Ballarpur Colliery to Central Hospital, Ib Valley area, Mahanadi Coalfield Ltd. on bifurcation of the said Western Coalfield Ltd, where she continued till the order at Annexure-4 was given effect to. It is averred that while the petitioner was continuing as such, she was served with the copy of order of superannuation on her attaining the age of sixty years as on 30.12.2003. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on a query being made with regard to the actual date of birth of the petitioner by the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, Ib Vally area to the Superintendent, Mines/Manager, Ballarpur Colliery, the said letter was responded by the Superintendent, Mines/Manager, Ballarpur Colliery with intimation that the Form 'B' Register maintained by the establishment, discloses the date of birth of the petitioner as 15.5.1953.

(3.) Filing the copies of the correspondences referred to hereinabove and copy of the Form 'B' Register indicating the details of the petitioner at Sl.139 vide Annexure-3, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for availability of the particular date of birth in the Form 'B' Register being a statutory Register, there was no scope for the establishment to interfere with the date of birth of the petitioner and Sri Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, claimed, prepone-ment of the superannuation date of the petitioner is not justified and thus, remain contrary to law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further taking this Court to the counter response as well as the verity of documents available in the brief submitted that the plea taken in the counter affidavit and the documents appended thereto are all created by the establishment only to defeat the case of the petitioner. Documents referred to in the counter having no statutory support, learned counsel for the petitioner thus contended that the documents relied on by the establishment have no legal sanctity and thus, requested this Court to interfere with the matter, thereby set aside the order vide Annexuer-4 and permit the petitioner to continue in service till actually attending the age of superannuation.