The court upheld the retirement order based on the medical board's age determination, ruling that the school certificate's authenticity was not established, negating the need for an enquiry.

JUDGMENT :

1) The petitioner has challenged order No.SIDCO/CO/20.03 dated 24.11.2020, issued by respondent No.2, whereby it has been provided that the petitioner is deemed to have been retired from service with effect from 30th June, 2020, on attaining the age of superannuation as per the date of birth 03.06.1960, pending enquiry into his date of birth claim of school certificate issued by Headmaster, Government High School, Narbal Beeru.

2) As per case of the petitioner, he was appointed as Orderly in the respondent Corporation and as per the school leaving certificate issued by Government Boys High School, Narbal, which he submitted as proof of his age, his date of birth was recorded as 01.01.1967. It has been submitted that the aforesaid proof of age submitted by the petitioner was accepted and recorded by the respondent Corporation without any objection and, accordingly, entry in his service book in this regard was made. It has been submitted that initially the petitioner was working in the office of Ex-Incharge Manager Watch Case Project when it was under the administrative control of J&K Industries Limited but later on, this project was transferred to the respondent Corporation, whereafter the petitioner came to be regularized by virtue of order No.IDC/05/133 dated 05.04.1995. The petitioner is stated to have earned promotions and increments from time to time and the entries in this regard were duly made in his service book.

3) According to the petitioner, initially he was engaged as a DPL in the respondent Corporation in the year 1986 and his services were regularized with effect from the year 1995. It has been contended that though the petitioner had submitted the date of birth certificate depicting his date of birth as 01.01.1967, in the office of Incharge Manager Watch Case Project, but at the time of regularization of his services in the year 1995, he was forced to undergo age determination test before the Medical Board. It has been submitted that the service book of the petitioner was prepared in the year 2005 in which his date of birth was recorded as 01.01.1967 on the basis of the discharge certificate produced by him but the respondents have taken date of birth of the petitioner as 08.06.1960 by relying upon the certificate issued by the Medical Board, which is not permissible in law.

4) The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that in terms of Article 35-AA of the J&K Civil Service Regulations, 1956, which are applicable to the employees of the respondent Corporation, age of an employee is to be determined with reference to the date of birth mentioned in the school leaving certificate and it is only in case an employee fails to produce school leaving certificate, the date of birth has to be determined with reference to the age determined by the Medical Board. It has been further contended that it was not open to the respondents to change the date of birth of the petitioner in his service record without affording him an opportunity of hearing and without holding an enquiry. It has also been contended that the respondents while issuing the impugned order have, in effect, imposed the penalty of premature retirement upon the petitioner without holding an enquiry and without following the procedure prescribed in Rule 33 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956.

5) The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing their reply thereto, wherein it has been submitted that at the time when services of the petitioner were regularized, he was asked to produce proof relating to his date of birth but he submitted that he is an illiterate person and does not have any age proof, as a result whereof, he along with certain other employees, who were also regularized along with the petitioner, were referred to the Medical Board as contemplated under Article 35-AA of the J&K CSR. It has been submitted that as per the opinion of the Medical Board, age of the petitioner was