IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI

th

ON THE 11 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 8291 of 2024 MEERA KUSHWAH Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ankur Maheshwari - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri K.K. Prajapati - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.

ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 19.02.2024, Annexure P/1, passed by respondent no.3, whereby she is made to retire w.e.f. 31.03.2024 allegedly on completion of 62 years of age.

2 . The facts necessary for the decision of this case are that the petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Sahayika for Anganwadi Center Purahthariya, District Morena, vide order dated 20.03.2003. She was made to retire w.e.f. 31.03.2024 vide order dated 19.02.2024 on the pretext that she has attained the age of 62 years. The impugned order refers to the report given by the Medical Board on 26.03.2015 with regard to her age.

Challenging this order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that the retirement of the petitioner based upon Medical Report dated 26.03.2015 is illegal and arbitrary. As per his submission, the date of birth of the petitioner is 02.03.1976, as is evident from the copy of the school register filed as Annexure P/3. He submitted that the forced premature retirement of the petitioner is illegal. The learned counsel also argued that the petitioner was never communicated the report dated 26.03.2015, whereby her age was determined to be 53-54 years, and therefore, the unilateral retirement of the petitioner based upon the said report is illegal. He therefore, prayed for setting aside of impugned order and for reinstatement of petitioner.

4. On the other hand, the learned respondents' counsel supported the impugned order and submitted that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2003. However, no proof of her age was submitted by her. He refers to the circular dated 07.11.2014, whereby instructions were issued by the Women and Child Development Department to get the medical examination of the Anganwadi Workers/Sahayika done for their age determination, where there is no material available regarding their age. It is his submission that the petitioner was examined by the Medical Board, Morena, and vide certificate dated 26.03.2015 (Annexure R/1), her age was determined to be 53-54 years. Therefore, based upon the said report, the petitioner has been rightly retired w.e.f. 31.03.2024 as she has attained the age of 62 years. The learned counsel thus prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5 . This Court, vide order dated 30.04.2024, directed for medical examination of petitioner for her age determination by the District Medical Board at J.A. Hospital (Jaya Arogya Hospital), Gwalior. Accordingly, the petitioner was examined by the Medical Board and the report has been placed on record in an envelope. As per this report dated 08.05.2024, the age of the petitioner is 55 years +/-5 yrs.

6. Considered the arguments and perused the record.

7. Admittedly, at the time of the petitioner’s appointment, there was no age recorded in her service records. The petitioner relies upon the school register filed as Annexure P/3 to say that her date of birth is 02.03.1976. However, it is not clear as to on what basis the said date of birth is recorded.

Therefore, the date of birth as per the school register is not acceptable. 8. The petitioner was examined by the Medical Board on 26.03.2015.

The Board determined her age to be 53-54 years. However, as per the petitioner's contention, she was not even aware about the purpose for which the medical examination was being conducted. She also contends that the copy of the report is never supplied to her. It is also not clear as to what tests were conducted on petitioner for purposes of determination of her age. 9. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the office of Joint Director and Superi