VICTORIA RABINSON Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife vide letter of appointment dated 22nd of February, 1962. At the time of her entry into the service, her date of birth was recorded as 31.5.1940 in the service book. She was thereafter promoted as Lady Health Visitor on 13.8.1985 and in the seniority list up to 31.3.1995, circulated by the Director, Health Services, Punjab, her date of birth was also shown as being 31.5.1940. The petitioner was accordingly to remain in service up to the age of 58 years i.e. 31st May, 1998. The petitioner, however, received a communication dated 23rd December, 1996 Annexure P.1 from the Senior Medical Officer, Health Centre, Manupur where she stood posted, to the effect that her matriculation certificate had been received which indicated that her date of birth was 31.5.1938 and not 31.5.1940 and she was accordingly being relieved with effect from 23.12.1996. The said communication has been impugned in the present proceedings.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued and a reply has been filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4. It has been pleaded that from the certificates R.1 and R.2 and the application Annexure R.3. made by the petitioner her date of birth was shown as 31.5.1938 and as such, she was deemed to have superannuated on 31.5.1996. On merits, it has been pleaded that as a matter of fact, no change in the date of birth of the petitioner had been made and she had merely been retired on attaining the age of superannuation vide Annexure P.1. A replication has also been filed by the petitioner in which reliance has been placed on clause (1) of Annexure 'A' of Rule 2.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. I Part I (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') to contend that order Annexure P.1 which in essence was an order changing date of birth, could not have been passed by the Senior Medical Officer as this was the sole prerogative of the Government and was unsustainable for the additional reason that it had been passed without notice to the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. G.S. Mann, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order, Annexure P.1 made by the Senior Medical Officer (respondent No. 5) was wholly without jurisdiction. In this respect, he has placed reliance on clause (1) of Annexure 'A' of Rule 2.5 of the Rules which is reproduced as under :-