KAMALESHWARI SINGH Vs. ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 6 -6 -1992 passed by the Chief Engineer (D), Assam State Electricity Board, whereby it was declared that the service of the petitioner's husband stood terminated with effect from 1.2.1992 that is with effect from the date of superannuation. The petitioner has also sought for necessary direction upon the respondents for upholding the previous order dated 13.02.1992 issued by the Executive Engineer, T & T Division, Assam State Electricity Board (ASEB), whereby the date of birth of the petitioner's husband as recorded in his service book was corrected from 1.2.1934 to 1.6.1944. The further prayer made in the writ petition is for a direction to the 'respondent authorities to pay the family pension and other retiral dues of the petitioner's husband with adequate interest thereon by taking 31 -5 -2002 as his date of superannuation which is on the basis of his actual date of birth i.e., 1.6.1944. The facts of the case necessary for adjudication may be briefly stated at the very outset:

(2.) THE respondents have filed their affidavit -in -opposition. In their affidavit, the respondents have contended that the writ petition is not maintainable because of the delay in filing the same. They also contended that the petitioner's husband had withdrawn the writ petition filed by him and denied that the authority had assured him to consider his grievance. On merit, it has been contended that the date of birth of the petitioner's husband was correctly recorded in the service book as 1 -2 -1934 and that the same was acknowledged by him by putting his thumb impression. Contending that the Executive Engineer does not have any authority to make correction of the date of birth, it has been asserted that the higher authority rightly confirmed the date of birth as 1 -2 -1934. Regarding - non -payment of the terminal benefits in respect of the petitioner's husband, the respondents have stated that the same could not be paid as the petitioner has not applied for the same and that after filing of the writ petition, the respondents have sent a letter dated 4 -8 -2010 to the petitioner seeking particulars for drawal of terminal benefits of her deceased husband. The respondents have stated that after receipt of such information, the retiral benefits as found due would be disbursed at the earliest.

(3.) I have heard Mr. P. B. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. H.K. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, ASEB appearing for all the respondents. Referring to the various averments made in the writ petition and the documents annexed thereto, Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel submitted that it is a genuine case and extreme hardship has been caused to the petitioner and her children because of the inaction of the respondents. He submitted that the petitioner's husband had moved the authority for correction of his date of birth about 10(ten) years before his retirement immediately on coming to know that his date of birth was wrongly recorded in the service book as 1 -2 -1934 instead of 1 -6 -1944. He further submitted that the concerned Executive Engineer had rightly corrected the date of birth of the petitioner's husband based on the school certificate and the medical certificate. In any case, he contended, the said correction was made subject to the approval of the Superintending Engineer. Without taking a decision either approving or disapproving such correction, the Chief Engineer arbitrarily sent the telephonic message on 5 -6 -1992, which was sent to the petitioner's husband in written form on 6 -6 -1992, without hearing the petitioner's husband. On this aspect of the matter, Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel, relies on the following judgments :