JUDGMENT
Susanta Chatterji, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed praying inter alia :-
“(a) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari commanding the respondents to certify and transmit to this Hon’ble Court the records relating to the petitioner so that conscienable justice may be done by quashing the orders dated 20.1.92 and 15.1.92.
(b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents from giving effect to the order dated 20.1.92 and 15.1.92; and
(c) A direction upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to join and pay her salary month by month; and
(d) A writ in the nature of prohibition forbidding the respondents from giving effect to the orders dated 20.1.92 and 15.1.92; and
(e) A Rule Nisi in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c) and (d); and
(f) To call for the records of the case and after perusing the same and hearing both the sides to make the Rule absolute; and
(g) To pass and ad-interim order of injunction “restraining the respondents from giving effect to the impugned order dated 20.1.92 and 15.1.92 and a mandatory injunction upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to join and to pay the salary of the petitioner month by month; and
(h) To pass such other or further order or orders as to your Lordships may deem fit and proper.”
2. It is stated in details that the petitioner joined the Dairy Development Corporation as a Muster-roll worker on daily wage basis. She was absorbed as Lower Division Clierk in the year 1970. It is alleged that at the time of entry into the Service Book, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 12.12.1934. Since appointment, the petitioner has been discharging her duties and functions diligently, efficiently and sincerely without any dispute from any corner. It is, however, stated that the elder brother of the petitioner affirmed an affidavit in the year 1979 wherein the date of birth of the petitioner was disclosed as 12.12.1934. Besides, in the Horoscope the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 12.12,1934. In the year 1989 the petitioner was asked to submit the Matriculation Certificate and accordingly the petitioner submitted a xerox copy thereof. Again on 18.1.90, the petitioner was asked to produce the original Matriculation Certificate. The petitioner accordingly submitted the original Matriculation Certificate before the authority concerned. On 22.2.91 the petitioner was again asked to produce the original certificate and she was directed to explain why she had altered her date of birth from 11.12.1933 as written in the P.V. Roll Form and as shown again in her joining report for Muster-Roll Worker dated 8.10.60. The authorities concerned are alleged to have again asked the petitioner to submit the duplicate Matriculation Certificate from the Calcutta University by 31.7.91. Incidentally, the petitioner applied for non-refundable loan from the P.F. authorities for her medical treatment and the said loan was granted by the Milk Commissioner vide order dated 8.8.91 for Rs. 7,000/-. It would appear from the records that the date of superannuation of the petitioner was 31.12.92 in view of her date of birth being 12.12. 34. The grievance of the petitioner is that since the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 12.12.1934 in her service book as also in the affidavit sworn by her elder brother corroborated by the entry in the Horoscope, the authorities concerned cannot takes step to compel the petitioner to retire on superannuation on and from 31.12.91. In fact, the petitioner moved an earlier writ petition challenging the order dated 30.9.91 passed by the Additional Milk Commissioner (Projects) and the said petition was disposed of by M.R. Maffick, J. by revoking the impugned order of superannuation dated 30.9.91, holding, inter alia, that the date of birth recorded in the service book cannot be changed without giving an. opportunity of being heard to the petitioner Pursuant to the order dated 20.12.91, the Milk Commissioner, West Bengal, served a notice upon the petitioner on 7.1.92 directing her to appear before him in his chamber at Writers’ Buildings on 13.1.92. The petitioner prayed for two days time as the spectacles of the petitioner was broken. But the petitioner’s prayer was rejected and the Milk Commissioner asked some questions to the petitioner and her answers were recorded on some papers. However, by letter dated 20.1.92 the Milk Commissioner, West Bengal, informed the petitioner that the petitioner’s date of retirement falls on. 31.12.91 and the said date has already expired. The petitioner has again filed the present writ petitioner challenging the impugned orders as indicated above, on the grounds that the impugned orders are violative of the principles of natural justice in as much as no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner and the impugned orders determining the age of the petitioner is not in accordance with the provisions of law as envisaged under Rule 9 of the West Bengal Service Rules Part-I. It is asserted that in 1979 when the entry of the date of birth of the petitioner in the service book was recorded to be 12.12.34 on the materials supplied by the petitioner, the same must be treated as valid and justified and the same cannot be reviewed, in the manner as sought for.
3. In the instant case the preparation of the Service Book was made in view of Matriculation Certificate, Passport, affidavit and the Horoscope and there is no evidence to the contrary to record the age of the petitioner in any other manner in view of the previous muster-roll while the petitioner was a worker on daily wage basis.
4. The petition is opposed by the state respondents. No affidavits have been filed. The entire records have however been produced. Upon perusal of the materials on record produced by the respondents, it appears that while the petitioner passed her Matriculation Examination, there was no scope for giving date of birth of a Female Candidate. The petitioner’s service book was prepared and at all materials points of time the entry of her date of birth was made as on 12-12-1934. Accordingly, the petitioner has to retire by 1st December, 1992. It transpires from the record that an attempt was made by the respondents to verify the age of the petitioner and she was asked to produce her Matriculation Certificate. Admittedly, there is no entry of the date of birth in the Matriculation Certificate of the petitioner. She was, however, asked to explain the alleged entry of date of birth in the Muster-roll. Without determining anything the impugned notice of superannuation was issued on 31.9.1991. Being aggrieved the petitioner challenged the same. The said notice of superannuation was revoked and/or quashed by the judgment passed by M.R. Mallick, J. It was observed, inter alia, that there cannot be any alteration of the date of entry in the Service Book without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, a notice was sent to the petitioner on 7-1-1992 and the Milk Commissioner heard the petitioner on 13-1-1992. No proper proceeding has been drawn up nor any opportunity was given to adduce evidence nor any evidence has been considered by the Milk Commissioner as to why the entry in the service book has to be altered by violating the principle of Rule 9 of West Bengal Service Rule (part I). Upon perusal of the impugned order dated 15.1.1992 and 20.1.1992 the court is of the view that arbitrary steps have been taken by the respondents concerned to hold that the petitioner will retire on and from 31-12-1991. Such steps are found to be irregular and illegal. The impugned orders are contrary to and inconsistent with the provisions of law to review the date of birth entered in the Service Book of the petitioner. The Matriculation Certificate, the affidavit of 1979 and the Horoscope produced by the petitioner are not contradicted by any worthing evidence to arrive at the conclusion that the date of birth of the petitioner is 12-12-33 and not 12-12- 1934. Hearing given by the Milk Commissioner appears to be a mockery, and not incompliance with the judgment passed by M.R. Mallick, J and in accordance with the law. Looking at the facts of the case and looking at the records in depth, this Court is convinced that the date of birth of the petitioner as entered in the Service record cannot be altered, and the date of superannuation of the petitioner must be reckoned as on 31-12-1992 and not 31-12-1991.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. The petitioner will be entitled to all financial benefits and she will be deemed to have retired from her service on and from 31-12-1992 and the retirement benefits and all other service benefits should be calculated accordingly.
There will be no order as to costs.