KARAM CHAND AND OTHERS Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners claim and which claim is not refuted by the respondents, that the petitioners had been working in the Department of the Irrigation and Flood Control as Mechanics, Filters, Moulders and Chargeman etc. At the time of their recruitment in the Government Service, their dates of birth as per the requisite documents then submitted by the petitioners was recorded in their respective Service Books. The petitioners remained in the service of respondents for more than two decades.

(2.) It appears that during the year 2009, the respondent No.1 noticed that the dates of birth of large number of employees serving in the PHE and I & FC, particularly, Helpers, Linemen etc had been recorded at the time of their recruitment either on the basis of verbal statements or documents which were not authentic or supported by any verification by the competent medical authorities. Accordingly, a decision was taken to provide an opportunity to such employees, who were apparently overstaying in service having crossed the age of superannuation to seek voluntarily retirement from service. Accordingly, the respondent No.1 vide communication No.PW/Hyd/G/148/09-circular dated 07.08.2009 promulgated a Notice calling upon such employees to apply for voluntary retirement within a period of three months; providing further that in case they do so they would be entitled to full pensionary benefits but if they do not chose to retire voluntarily, they would be put to under medical test to be conducted with latest medical techniques to determine their age. Notice also envisaged that if upon medical examination it was proved that they had crossed the age of superannuation, the Department would not only retire them compulsorily but also initiate recovery proceedings against them for a period they might have overstayed in the Government service.

(3.) Pursuant to this Notice, the petitioners were served by an Order dated 18.12.2009 indicating them that they would retire from service w.e.f. 31.12.2009 AN. Aggrieved, the petitioners challenged the aforesaid Notice/Order dated 18.12.2009 in SWP No.1832 of 2010. The writ petition was allowed by a Bench of this Court vide its order dated 27.08.201 The impugned order was quashed leaving it open to the respondents to initiate necessary inquiry into the dates of birth of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders permissible under law.