IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01.04.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.36604 of 2004 & W.P.M.P.No.43935 of 2004 K.Amutha ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Perambalur, Perambalur District. 2.The Commissioner, Jayamkondam Panchayat Union, Jayamkondam, Perambalur District. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.A1/3660/04 dated 01.12.2004 and quash the same and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to work in the 2nd respondent Panchayat Union as per the date of birth i.e. on 01.11.1956 with all service and monetary benefits. For petitioner : Mr.M.Hidayattulla Khan For R1 : Mr.B.Vijay Government Advocate For R2 : Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram ORDER The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 01.12.2004 passed by the 2nd respondent/the Commissioner, Jayamkondam Panchayat Union, Jayamkondam, in Na.Ka.A1/3660/04 and to quash the same and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to work in the 2nd respondent/Jayamkondam Panchayat Union, Jayamkondam, as per date of birth i.e. on 01.11.1956 with all service and monetary benefits. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The petitioner, K.Amutha was appointed as Ayah in the office of the Block Development Officer through Employment Exchange on 28.02.1976. Thereafter, in the year 1977, her services was regularized with effect from 22.05.1976. In the Service Register, the date of birth of the petitioner was entered by the 2nd respondent/the Commissioner, Jayamkondam Panchayat Union, Jayamkondam, as 01.11.1956 on the basis of the medical opinion given by the Government Doctor. Subsequently, for want of vacancy, the 2nd respondent ousted the service of the petitioner by informing her that she would be considered whenever future vacancy arose. However, ignoring the same, the 2nd respondent tried to fill up the vacancies in the year 1978. Thereafter, she was appointed as Assistant in the Child Welfare Centre, at Karuvelappar Koil on 01.11.1993 by the Project Nutrition Officer. In the year 1978, she was appointed on consolidated pay. Therefore, she was constrained to file an O.A.No.948 of 1993 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, after considering the case of the petitioner, was pleased to pass an order dated 11.03.1994, directing 2nd respondent to appoint the petitioner in time scale of pay. In compliance of the order, the petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant in time scale of pay and joined in the office of the 2nd respondent, on 10.11.1995. Since then, the petitioner is continuing in service. But, all of a sudden, without any notice, her date of birth is said to have been altered as 06.10.1944 on the basis of the certificate of the Sub Registrar, Udayarpalayam. 3. Aggrieved by the above said action of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed O.A.No.15 of 2004 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, with a prayer to direct the respondents to alter the date of birth as 01.11.1956 instead of 06.10.1944 as per the original entry in the Service Register by considering her representation dated 08.12.2003. Though she would retire in the year 2016, in view of the altered date of birth, she would be forced to retire on 06.10.2004 on attaining the age of 60 years. 4. The Tribunal, by its order dated 02.02.2004, dismissed the Original Application. As against the dismissal of the Original Application, the petitioner filed Writ Petition in W.P.No.24772 of 2004 before this Court. While appreciating the petitioner's contention that no opportunity was given while altering the date of birth and the correction has been made behind the back of the petitioner, this Court, by order dated 14.10.2004, directed the respondents to conduct an enquiry into the petitioner's correct date of birth with further direction to complete the enquiry within a period of six months. In pursuance of the order dated 14.10.2004 passed by this Court in W.P.No.24772 of 2004, the first respondent directed the Assistant Director (Audit), Ariyalur, to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. After the appointment of Enquiry https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Officer, the Enquiry Officer also issued a memo on 24.11.2005, directing the petitioner to appear for enquiry on 26.11.2004 with her birth certificate. But, in the said enquiry, the petitioner admitted that she was not having any document to support her date of birth as 01.11.1956. The petitioner participated in the said enquiry and produced only three documents, namely, i) Copy of the proceedings of the Commissioner in Jeyamkondam in Na.Ka.A1/6484/75, dated 01.03.1976. ii) Copy of the proceedings of the Commissioner of Panchayat Union, Jeyamkondam in Na.Ka.1/4377/1977, dated 27.02.1978. iii) Copy of the proceedings of the Commissioner of Panchayat Union, Jeyamkondam in Na.Ka.1/1234/93, dated 01.11.1995. 5. Apart from the three documents, she had not produced any document and also admitted that she was not having any document to support her of date of birth as 01.11.1956. On the basis of the enquiry proceedings, the Enquiry Officer also submitted a report holding that her date of birth is 06.10.1944. Thereafter, on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer report, the petitioner was relieved from service on the basis of the date of birth namely, 06.10.1944. The said order has been put in issue before this Court, in the present Writ Petition. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to establish her date of birth as per Rule 49 A (1) dealing with correction of date of birth by consent with Medical Board to find out her correct age for the purpose of continuing in service. Further, it was contended that the non furnishing of Enquiry Report is also in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. On that basis, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for quashing the impugned order. 7. Per contra, Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the direction was given by this Court in W.P.No.24772 of 2004 to hold an enquiry by giving opportunity to the petitioner to produce sufficient document to substantiate her case was fully complied with by allowing the petitioner to participate in the enquiry and the petitioner also, while participating in the said enquiry, produced three photo copies of the documents given below:- i) Copy of the proceedings of the Commissioner in Jeyamkondam in Na.Ka.A1/6484/75, dated 01.03.1976. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ii) Copy of the proceedings of the Commissioner of Panchayat Union, Jeyamkondam in Na.Ka.1/4377/1977, dated 27.02.1978. iii) Copy of the proceedings of the Commissioner of Panchayat Union, Jeyamkondam in Na.Ka.1/1234/93, dated 01.11.1995. After producing the above mentioned three documents she admitted that she was not having any more document to prove that her date of birth was not 06.10.1944. Therefore, the direction given by this Court was fully complied with. Further, it was submitted that it is the duty cast upon the petitioner to produce all the relevant documents like certificate from any Revenue Officer indicating her original date of birth. But, the petitioner had not produced any scrap of paper. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer, after receiving the above mentioned three documents, concluded the enquiry and thereafter, on the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the 2nd respondent, on the basis of the instruction given by the 1st respondent on 30.11.2004, passed order on 01.12.2004 stating that the petitioner is deemed to have retired from service on 31.10.2004 as per her date of birth as 06.10.1944. Therefore, it is highly improper for the petitioner to contend that no reasonable opportunity was given to her. 8. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner joined the service and her date of birth was recorded as 06.10.1944. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the date of birth was entered as 01.11.1956 as per the medical opinion of the Government Doctor cannot be accepted as truth. Even otherwise, when the petitioner was made to retire on the basis of her date of birth as 06.10.1944, she was neither able to establish her case before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, at the time of filing Original Application No.15 of 2004 nor before this Court in Writ Petition No.24772 of 2004. Even after passing of the order by this Court in the above said Writ Petition, a direction was given to the respondent, to hold further enquiry. Even on the third occasion before the Enquiry Officer also, when the department held an enquiry in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.24772 of 2004, she was not able to produce any acceptable document to establish that her date of birth was not 06.10.1944 but, it was only 01.11.1956. Therefore, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not given any reasonable opportunity. An opportunity was given by holding an enquiry wherein, admittedly, the petitioner took part by producing all photo copies of the documents mentioned above. She fairly admitted before the Enquiry Officer that she did not have any other document to establish her case that her date of birth was 01.11.1956. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ In the facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present Writ Petition. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar smn To 1.The District Collector, Perambalur, Perambalur District. 2.The Commissioner, Jayamkondam Panchayat Union, Jayamkondam, Perambalur District. + 1 cc to Mr.M.Hidayathulla,Advocate,SR.22138 W.P.No.36604 of 2004 & W.P.M.P.No.43935 of 2004 GV(CO) EM/26.5.10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/