JAMNA BAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with two prayers; first prayer is that respondents be directed to treat 25.4.1946 as her date of birth and on that basis superannuate her on attaining the age of 60 years; second is that they be directed to implement judgment passed by this Court in DBCWP No.1681/1980 dated 3.7.1987 and give her posting on the post of Dai in Pay Scale No.2 in the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1976. 2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that 25.4.1946 is the date of her birth entered in the record of State Insurance Department. The Class-IV employees working in SMS Hospital vide letter dated 20.12.1983 and another letter dated 27.1.1984 were required to submit their actual date of birth. Petitioner filed affidavit to this effect on 7.12.1994, which was duly attested by Notary Public yet, the respondents have illegally taken 25.4.1936 as the date of her birth and retired her on that basis. It is contended that if 25.4.1936 accepted the date of birth of petitioner, she would be over age as on the date of initial appointment thus making her initial appointment itself irregular. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of Division Bench allowing earlier her writ petition whereby respondents were directed to give her posting on the post of Dai in the pay scale No.2 of Revised Pay ScaleRules 1976, but so far they have not complied with that judgment. It is, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be allowed in terms prayed for.