THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.17780 OF 2011 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. The case of the petitioner, as stated in the writ affidavit, is that her husband worked in the respondent – M/s Hindustan Shipyard Limited, Visakhapatnam with Badge No.01-06-1712 and died on 26.08.1981 while in service, therefore, she was taken into service as Sweeper in the year 1994 on compassionate grounds and at that time, she submitted a notarized affidavit dated 31.12.1994, mentioning her date of birth as 15.7.1959 and subsequently, she was absorbed as Sanitary Khalasi with Badge No.15.09.L 417 as per proceeding dated 23.2.2009 and since then she has been working. While so, the respondent – company issued circular dated 6.12.2010, showing the dates of superannuation of the employees and in the said circular, the petitioner’s date of superannuation is shown as 31.12.2011. The case of the petitioner is that, as per the affidavit submitted on 31.12.1994, her date of birth was mentioned as 15.7.1959 and if the said date of birth is taken, she attains the age of superannuation in July, 2018. Therefore, she got issued notices for correction of date of superannuation and in response to the same, the respondent – company issued reply notice dated 7.5.2011, stating that she produced doctor’s certificate and also notarized affidavit and as per the assessment of Dr.A.Krishna Murthy, her age was assessed as on 1.1.2009, as 57 years and that the petitioner submitted notarized affidavit stating her date of birth as 1.1.1952. The grievance of the petitioner is that when she has already submitted notarized affidavit on 31.12.1994 showing her date of birth as 15.7.1959, there was no necessity for her to again undergo medical examination for assessment of age and submit a notarized affidavit on 17.1.2009 showing her date of birth as 1.1.1952. Therefore, aggrieved by the circular dated 6.12.2010, she filed the present writ petition to set aside the same and consequently direct the respondent to continue her in service up to the end of July, 2018. 3. The respondent – company filed counter affidavit and stated that the respondent – company does not carryout any sovereign functions or is carrying out any Governmental functions and hence it is not ‘State’ as contemplated under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is further stated that the consequent on the death of husband of the petitioner, she was taken as Sweeper during the year 1994 on contract basis for a period of three years into ‘L’ services as Sanitary Khalasi with Badge No.15-09-L. 417 vide order letter dated 23.3.2009 and at the time of joining, as she did not produce any proof of her age, she was asked to produce any certificate supported by a notarized affidavit declaring her age and accordingly she submitted certificate issued by Dr.A.Krishna Murthy, Professor, and as per the said certificate, the age of the petitioner as on 1.1.2009 was 57 years and in addition to the certificate, the petitioner also submitted notarized affidavit mentioning her date of birth as 1.1.1952. Therefore, the impugned circular was issued showing the date of superannuation of the petitioner as 31.12.2011. With these averments, intera alia, the writ petition was sought to be dismissed. 4. From the above material on record, it could be seen that the petitioner was working in the respondent – company, which is a Government of India undertaking, as Sanitary Khalasi with Badge No.15-09-L 417. The case of the petitioner is that at the time of her joining in service on compassionate grounds, she has submitted a notarized affidavit mentioning her date of birth as 15.7.1959 and therefore, there was no necessity for her to undergo medical examination for assessment of age by one Dr.A.Krishna Murthy, as alleged in the counter affidavit, and that she never submitted a notarized affidavit on 17.1.2009 showing her date of birth as 1.1.1952. Therefore, as per the initial affidavit submitted by her, she attains the age of superannuation in July, 2018. On the other hand, the respondent – company in the counter affidavit has categorically denied that the petitioner has submitted any affidavit showing her date of birth as 15.7.1959 at the time of joining into service and its case is that the petitioner submitted notarized affidavit on 17.1.2009 along with doctor’s certificate showing that her date of birth as 1.1.1952. These disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into by this court under the writ jurisdiction. 5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner represented that the petitioner may be given liberty to approach the civil court for declaration of her date of birth. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. 7. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for seeking declaration of her date of birth in accordance with law. 8. No order as to costs. AVS ------------------------------------- 15—12—2011 Note: Issue C.C. in one week. B/O