SATYA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved since she is asked to retire on the basis that she has attained the age of 60 years. According to the petitioner, she is born in the year 1953, as can be seen from Annexure P-1, copy of the Pariwar Register. It was on that basis that she was appointed. Even according to the respondents, there is no other evidence so as to establish that the petitioner has attained the age of 60 years. If a document has been relied upon at the time of appointment in the matter of age, unless there is other material to upset the findings in that regard, there is no justification in not relying upon that document. THErefore, we set aside the impugned orders, however, without prejudice to the liberty to the respondents that in case they are in possession of any material to establish that the petitioner is 60 years of age, it will be open to them to take appropriate action, with notice to the petitioner. Unless otherwise and until such time, the age shall be determined on the basis of Annexure P-1. According to the petitioner, she estimates the birth to be in the end of the year 1953. THErefore, for all other purposes unless otherwise established, she shall be treated to have been born in the year 1953. Since the year alone is mentioned, it is made clear that it shall be taken as end of the year.

(2.) WITH these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Copy dasti.