Writ Petition No. 13897/2010. Case: Ramvati Vs State of M.P. and Ors.. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)

Case NumberWrit Petition No. 13897/2010
CounselFor Appellant: Mrigendra Singh, Learned Senior Counsel and G. Rasool, Counsel and For Respondents: Sonali Shrivastava, Learned P.L.
JudgesSujoy Paul, J.
IssueService Law
Judgement DateFebruary 03, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)


Sujoy Paul, J.

  1. This is second visit of the petitioner to this Court relating to her grievance about premature retirement. Earlier the petitioner was retired on completion of 30 years of service w.e.f. 31.12.2001. This order was called in question by filing W.P.(S) No. 01/2005. This Court, by following the principles laid down by the Division Bench in Ramrup v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, opined that the petitioner is entitled to continue up to completion of age of 62 years. In obedience thereof, the petitioner was reinstated by order dated 01.07.2006 (Annexure-P/3). The petitioner along with other employees were sent for medical examination for the purpose of ascertaining their age. This communication dated 21.03.2001 is filed as Annexure-P/4. In turn, the petitioner was subjected to a medical examination and Civil Surgeon, Jabalpur issued the "Age Assessment Certificate" dated 26.03.2001 (Annexure-P/5). As per this certificate, petitioner's age was assessed as 49 years as on March, 2001. The petitioner received a communication dated 28.07.2010, whereby it was directed to produce the original letter of Executive Engineer pursuant to which she appeared before the Medical Board, failing which her case may again be sent for re-medical examination before the Medical Board.

  2. Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner's case was not subsequently sent to the Medical Board. The impugned order dated 28.08.2010 (Annexure-P/7) came as a blot from blue to the petitioner, whereby she was retired on 31.08.2010. Criticizing this order, it is contended that as per this order, the petitioner's year of birth is 1939. The petitioner is an illiterate woman. As per the report of the Medical Board, she has a legal right to continue up to the year 2014.

  3. Per contra, Mrs. Sonali Shrivastava, learned P.L. for the State relied on the averments of the return. She submits that the service book of the petitioner was prepared wherein the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 18.04.1939. The petitioner put her thumb impression as a token of acknowledgment in the said service record. There is no overwriting or clerical error in the entry related to date of birth of the petitioner. Thus, the respondents have retired the petitioner as per the date of birth mentioned in the service record. She submits that in fact, the petitioner has continued beyond her age of retirement because at the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT