LALHRUAITLUANGA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel for the petitioners assisted by Mr. Victor L. Ralte. None appeared for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Also heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5/MIZOFED.

(2.) The petitioners' case precisely is that the petitioner No. 1 was initially appointed to the post of Branch Manager of Mizoram State Cooperative Marketing and Consumers' Federation Ltd. (MIZOFED) in the year 1986 and retired recently as General Manager (General Administration) of the said MIZOFED. The petitioner No. 2 was initially appointed as apprentice Sales Girl in the year 1981 in the said MIZOFED and presently working in a superior position. The name of the petitioner No. 3 has been struck out as per Order dtd. 4/4/2022 passed in I.A.(C) No. 39/2022. The petitioners have contended that the respondent authority MIZOFED had issued a circular dtd. 4/6/2014 directing its employees to submit certificates duly issued by their respective churches indicating their exact date of birth to ascertain their correct date of birth as there were many employees who had been rendering services for a longer period, but unable to perform work satisfactorily. Pursuant thereto, the employees of MIZOFED including the petitioners submitted their certificates showing their actual dates of birth issued by their respective churches. The dates of birth of the petitioners as given in the church certificates showed them to be younger than the dates of birth recorded in their service books. The Board of Directors of MIZOFED (herein after referred as 'B.O.D.'), therefore, resolved that those certificates bearing age younger than their age recorded in the service books would not be accepted. The petitioners being aggrieved by such arbitrary and discriminatory resolution of the B.O.D. had submitted representations on 5/11/2018 and 26/2/2021 for rectification of their dates of birth in their service books and on the direction of this Court dtd. 18/3/2021 passed in WP(C) No. 22/2021 disposed of the same by issuing office Order No. 52/2021, dt. 24/3/2021 by the respondent No. 5 rejecting their representations. As such, the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for setting aside and quashing the aforesaid impugned Office Order, dt. 24/3/2021, and also to direct the respondents authority to accept their new dates of birth as indicated in their respective church certificates for determination of their dates of birth.

(3.) Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioner No. 1 has retired from service on 1/4/2021 and the petitioner No. 2 is due to retire on 23/4/2022 i.e., day after tomorrow. Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu further contends that while refusing to rectify the dates of birth of the petitioners in their respective service books as per the church certificates, the authenticity of the same has not been disputed by the respondents and whereas those church certificates of other employees which do tally with their service book entries and those employees who are even older than their service book entries are being accepted is apparently arbitrary and illogical.