VISHWA RANI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed for judicial review of order dated 13th October, 2004, passed by the then State Administrative Tribunal, whereby Original Application filed by the petitioner for release of extra terminal benefits, in respect of the service of her late husband Makhan Lal Sharma, has been dismissed.

(2.) RELEVANT facts may be stated thus. Late Makhan Lal Sharma was the husband of the petitioner. He joined Indian Army in the year 1963 and his date of birth was recorded by the Army authorities, in his service -book, as 2nd February, 1946. It appears that he joined the Army after passing matriculation examination. He was discharged from the Army in the year 1970. Thereafter, he was appointed as a Clerk in the Education Department of Himachal Pradesh. He got some promotions, while serving the Education Department. When he was Superintendent Grade -II and posted in Government Senior Secondary School at Nadaun, an enquiry was initiated by the Director (Education) as to the genuineness of the date of birth of said Makhan Lal Sharma, because there was a complaint that his date of birth was 2nd February, 1940 and not 2nd February, 1946, as shown in the service records maintained both by the Indian Army and the Education Department of Himachal Pradesh. Admittedly, the enquiry was being held behind the back of Makhan Lal Sharma. In other words, he was not made party to the enquiry, though he was called upon to produce certain papers, like his middle and matriculation examination certificates. Enquiry report was submitted on 13th October, 2001 and on the same day Makhan Lal Sharma died. As per enquiry report, there had been interpolation in the record maintained by the schools, where Makhan Lal Sharma studied and through that interpolation his year of birth had been changed from 1940 to 1946. It was only on the basis of this alleged interpolation in the records maintained by the schools that the Enquiry Officer reported that date of birth of Makhan Lal Sharma was 2nd February, 1940 and not 2nd February, 1946, as reflected in the records.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the action of the respondents and the Education Department, writ petitioner approached the then State Administrative Tribunal, by filing Original Application. She sought issuance of direction to the respondents to treat the deceased in service on the date of his death, i.e. 13th October, 2001, and to pay the death -cum -retirement gratuity, ex -gratia amount and also to grant family pension accordingly. Learned Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application, mainly on the ground that the deceased, by playing fraud, got his date of birth changed in the records of the schools he studied in and that since fraud vitiates everything, petitioner is not entitled to any relief. It is this order, judicial review of which has been sought, by means of the present writ petition.