Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 38753 of 2010 Petitioner :- Smt. Mamoo Respondent :- Principal Sec. Local Bodies Lko. And Another Petitioner Counsel :- Mohd. Yusuf Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,A.T. Kulshrestra Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
The Executive Officer under the impugned order dated
26.05.2010 has rejected the petitioner’s representation and
has informed the petitioner that he shall attain the age of
retirement i.e. 60 years on 30.04.2010.
The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by means of
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22482 of 2010 raising a
grievance that his date of birth as recorded in the service
record is 15.04.1955, therefore, the notice issued informing
the petitioner that he shall retire on 30.04.2010 is bad.
The writ Court permitted the petitioner to represent his
grievance before respondent no. 3. It is in pursuance to the
said order that the impugned order has been passed. The
Executive Engineer has enclosed a copy of the medical
report at the time of appointment of the petitioner dated
14.04.1980 on which the petitioner had affixed his thumb
impression as also a copy of the service book wherein the
date of birth of the petitioner is stated to have been
manipulated.
The order is being challenged on the ground that the
allegation of manipulation is totally unfounded and that the
report of the Chief Medical Officer has wrongly been relied
upon.
In the facts of the present case, I am of the considered
opinion that pure issues of fact with regard to the exact date
of birth are involved which needs examination of oral as well
as documentary evidence.
At this stage counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may
be granted liberty to approach the respondent no. 1 for
ventilating her grievances, instead of the matter being
examined by this Court any further.
In view of the aforesaid statement made by the petitioner, the
present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner
to make a representation ventilating all her grievances before
respondent no. 1, within two weeks from today, along with a
certified copy of this order. On such a representation being
made the respondent no. 1 shall call for the records and shall
pass a reasoned speaking order preferably within four weeks
after summoning the record from the Municipal Board.
Shri A.T.Kulshreshtha, Advocate is present on behalf of the
Municipal Board.
Dated : 07.07.2010
VR/38753/10