Smt. Rohimo vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 1 April, 2010

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Smt. Rohimo vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 1 April, 2010

            S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3291/2010
                        Smt. Rahimo
                  State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Date of Order: 1.4.2010


Mr.PS Bhati, for the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner has been retired from service on

attaining the age of superannuation on the basis of date of

birth recorded in the service record of the petitioner, which

is dated 7.3.1950. The petitioner has preferred this writ

petition before this Court on 29th March, 2010, whereas the

petitioner was sought to be retired from 31st March, 2010.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the

petitioner is of age of 51 years only and she submitted

sufficient proof for her age including medical certificate

obtained from the Medical Jurist of Jaisalmer Government

Hospital, which is placed on record as Annex.5 certifying

that the petitioner is of age of about 50-51 years old only.

It is also submitted that petitioner also submitted a copy of

the election card, voter list and rashion card from which it

can be gathered that petitioner is of the age of 51 years.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in similar

circumstances in SBCWP No.939/2005 – Smt. Jamna Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors, this Court passed interim order on


I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the

petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner placed on

record the copy of the seniority list dated 13.9.2000 issued

by the respondents, office order dated 18.11.2009, copy of

the rashion card, copy of the voter’s list and medical report.

It is clear from the seniority list dated 13.9.2000 that in the

seniority list, the date of birth of the petitioner is given as

7.3.1950 and date of joining is given as 1st April, 1999. She

never questioned her date of birth till she is sought to be

retired. The petitioner’s documents, rashion card and

voter’s list prima facie are not sufficient to prove the age

because that admission in her own favour. So far as medical

certificate is concerned, that is also is not a sufficient proof.

Therefore, these disputed facts cannot be decided in the

writ jurisdiction that what is the correct date of birth of the

petitioner. The petitioner already stands retired on

1.3.2010, therefore, the writ petition cannot be entertained

to decide the factual aspect. So far as order of this court

passed in SBCWP No.939/2005 is concerned, no fact is

available of the aforesaid case before this court, however, in

the order dated 18.3.2005, this court ordered that the

concerned authority is directed to remain present in court

personally along with the service record of the petitioner

and thereafter granted the interim order. In this case, it is

not in dispute that date of birth recorded in the petitioner’s

service book is 7.3.1950. In view of the above, the order

passed in SBCWP No.939/2005 is of no help to the


Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed

with liberty to the petitioner to approach before the civil




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *