Arun Monga, J
1. Petitioner is before this Court challenging the impugned order dated 18.01.2018 (Annex.14) vide which, the petitioner was ordered to be relieved while treating her date of birth 27.08.1956 and letter dated 22.12.2017 (Annex.15) vide which, the date of birth of petitioner was not being corrected on the ground that the proposal sent by respondent No.3 was not in consonance with Circular dated 05.05.2017.
2. Briefly stated the relevant facts, as pleaded in the petition, shorn of unnecessary details, are as under:-
2.1. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Aanganwari Karyakarta on the fixed remuneration by the respondents on 03.09.1990.
2.2. At the time of appointment, the petitioner submitted her school T.C. in which, her date of birth was mentioned as 01.01.1963 and on the basis of this date of birth, other documents i.e. Aadhar Card and Bhamashah Card were prepared.
2.3. In pursuance of the directions issued by the Department regarding date of birth on Rajposhan Software, the petitioner wrongly entered her date of birth as 27.08.1956 instead of 01.01.1963.
2.4. Upon knowing the fact of wrong entry regarding date of birth, the respondents vide letters dated 20.04.2016 and 12.05.2016 sent details of the employees who were getting remuneration and their date of birth has wrongly been entered in the master data and requested for necessary corrections.
2.5. In compliance of the above letters, respondent No.2 - Dy. Director, Women And Child Development Project, Udaipur wrote a letter dated 17.05.2016 to the Joint Director, Child Development and Woman Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, for making correction in the date of birth.
2.6. Meanwhile, petitioner also sent an application dated 05.10.2016 to the respondent No.3 - Child Development Project Officer, Women And Child Development Project, Girwa, District-Udaipur for correction in the date of birth in master data while stating her date of birth as 01.01.1963 on the basis of documents, referred to above.
2.7. The respondents issued a letter on 23.09.2016 to all the subordinate officers for correction in date of birth as per directions/guidelines issued vide order dated 01.09.2015 along with documents regarding selection registered, group insurance policy and personal file of the concerned remuneration employee.
2.8. In compliance of the letter dated 23.09.2016 and according to the guidelines/directions issued vide letter dated 01.09.2015, the respondent No.3 prepared and sent a proposal to the respondent No.2 vide letter dated 28.10.2016. Reminder was also issued on 02.06.2017.
2.9. It was pleaded in the petition that since September, 2016, the petitioner had not been paid any remuneration despite she was regularly performing her duties and her attendance was also marked in the register.
2.10. The Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat issued a certificate dated 10.06.2017 in respect of continued service at Anganwari Centre, Gojiya regarding petitioner.
2.11.Despite proposal of correction forwarded by the respondent No.4, respondent No.1 had not accepted the same. It was pleaded in the petition that for the grievance regarding non-payment of remuneration since October, 2016, petitioner had filed writ petition (No. 7502/2017) in which, this Court directed the government counsel to put an appearance and to file reply to the writ petition. The matter was fixed for 22.01.2018.
2.12.During pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, on demanding factual report for the purpose of filing reply to the writ petition, the respondent No.1 directed respondent No.2 to relieve the petitioner, while stating that the proposal for correction in the date of birth of petitioner is not possible because the proposal sent by the petitioner is not in consonance with the Circular dated 05.05.2017. On the basis of directions of respondent No.2 vide letter dated 15.01.2018, the respondent No.3 passed an order dated 18.01.2018, relieved the petitioner with immediate effect on attaining the age of superannuation, while treating her date of birth as 27.08.1956.
2.13.It was also pleaded in the petition that for ascertaining the age of the petitioner, she was medically examined by the Medical Board constituted by Maharana Bhupal General Hospital, Udaipur on 04.12.2017 and according to the report of the Medical Board, the petitioner was found to be between 50 to 55 years.
2.14.Facing with such situation and on being superannuated from service, the petitioner had withdrawn the earlier writ petition with liberty to file a fresh petition challenging the subsequent orders/letters. Hence, this writ petition.
3. The stand taken in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents is as below:-
3.1. The fact of appointment of petitioner on 03.09.1990 was not disputed but while disputing the fact regarding date of birth of petitioner as 01.01.1963 on the basis of alleged documents, it was submitted that as per Raj Poshan Portal of the Government, the real date of birth of the petitioner is 27.08.1956 as the petitioner had not submitted any document for date of birth at the time entry into service in the year 1990. It was also submitted that at the time of appointment, the petitioner had signed the hard copy of the document mentioning her date of birth as 27.08.1956.
3.2. It was also averred in the reply that as the petitioner attained the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years, impugned order dated 18.01.2018 was passed for reliving the petitioner from services. Lastly, it was prayed that as the petitioner has since been discharged/relieved and/or retired from services on attaining the age of superannuation, i.e. 60 years, vide impugned order dated 18.01.2018, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.
4. Perusal of the record appended with the petition vis-a-vis the annexures appended with the reply reflect that no doubt the claim of the petitioner that her date of birth is to be treated as 01.01.1963 was recommended by forwarding letter dated
20.04.2016 by the competent authority, i.e. CDPO - Child Development Project Officer and subsequently thereto, a letter dated 12.05.2016 (Annex.R/1) was sent for a favourable decision to be taken qua her claim for date of birth. The matter remained pending only on that level. Pursuant thereto, the letter aforesaid was dealt with by the Director of ICDS i.e. Integrated Child Development Services and vide an order dated 22.12.2017 (Annex.15), the claim of the petitioner was rejected while stating that the proposal is not in consonance with the Circular dated 05.05.2017 (Annex.16) issued by the State Government. However, the same cannot be treated to be a final decision qua the disputed date of birth as the same has to be in consonance with the Circular dated 05.05.2017 (Annex.16) issued by the State Government. Change of date, if any, has to be in consonance with the contents thereof. English translated version of the same reads as under:-
“Government of Rajasthan Directorate, Integrated Child Development Services, 2, Jal Path, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur.
P.25(50)/ICDS/computer/RajPoshan/2015/72287Jaipur, Date-5.05.2017
Circular
Subject- Regarding correction of wrongly mentioned date of birth in RajPoshan software.
Under State Integrated Child Development Services, a decision was taken from 10.07.2015 to prepare master data of honorarium workers at Child Development Project Officer office level and pay honorarium to honorarium workers through RajPoshan software every month.
Master data of honorarium workers was fed online in RajPoshan software. Applications were submitted from time to time by honorarium workers regarding wrongly mentioned date of birth during online feeding.
For this, guidelines were issued by the department by issuing circular number P.25(50)/ICDS/computer/RajPoshan/2015/81358-694 dated 01.09.2015 for entering the correct date of birth in the software.
In supersession of the above guidelines issued earlier by the department, the following guidelines are issued-
1. For correct entry of the birth dates of honorarium workers in the RajPoshan software, the following documents will be valid in order of priority-
(A) Certified copy of the register maintained in the Child Development Project Officer's office after the selection of honorarium workers.
(B) Certified copy of the date of birth mentioned in the Group Insurance Policy made by the department under the Group Insurance and Savings Scheme.
(C) Certified copy of the documents available in the personal file maintained in relation to honorarium after selection.
(D) In relation to secondary education, a certified copy of the certificate or mark sheet issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan or any other equivalent recognized
board/institution.
2. The applicant honorarium worker will have to submit an application along with the certified copy of the available documents to the concerned Child Development Project Officer's office to correct the wrong date of birth mentioned in the RajPoshan. The concerned office will maintain the record in the register while giving the receipt of the application.
3. After satisfaction of the application received by the concerned Child Development Project Officer's office, a certified copy of any one of the documents (a, b, c) mentioned in point number 1 along with clear recommendation will be sent to the Deputy Director's office within 3 days. In case none of the documents (a/b/c) mentioned in point number 1 is available in the records of the project office, a certified copy of the certificate or mark sheet issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan or any other equivalent recognized board/institution (d) will be valid as proof of date of birth, which will have to be sent for further action as above within the prescribed period after satisfaction.
4. The Deputy Director's office will examine the received case and give its clear recommendation and will send the proposal for marking the correct date of birth to the Directorate within 15 days along with the certified copy of the available documents.
5. The case received at the Directorate level will be examined and an order to mark the correct date of birth or an order to cancel the proposal will be issued within 30 days of receiving the case.6. In case the case is not examined as per rules/necessary action is not taken within the prescribed period, disciplinary action can be taken against the responsible officer/employee of the concerned project/district office.
7. All such applications related to amendment in the wrong date of birth recorded in RajPoshan will be required to be submitted to the concerned project office within a period of three months from the date of issue of this circular. Such applications received after the prescribed period of three months will not be considered.
8. After the effective date of RajPoshan (10th July, 2015), the applications/petitions received/pending till date at Directorate level for honorarium revision will be examined in the order of this circular and action will be taken as per rules. But in such cases, where honorarium workers have been separated from honorarium service as a result of completing 60 years of age, if any application is made by them now, then those application cases will not be considered.
The above instructions should be strictly followed.
(Dr. Samit Sharma)
Director”
5. In the light of aforesaid Circular dated 05.05.2017 (Annex.16), the competent authority i.e. Director, ICDS looked into the claim of the petitioner for change of date of birth and did not find the same in order and rejected it by assigning reasons in its order dated 20.12.2017 (Annex.15).
6. I may like to add here that matters regarding disputed date cannot possibly be decided by way of filing affidavits and counter affidavits and the same require threadbare evidence by of a civil trial and it is not for this Court to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction to decide as to what is the correct date of the petitioner.
6. Be that as it may, even otherwise vagaries of litigation are such that while the petitioner on the one hand asserted that her date of birth is to be treated as 01.01.1963 instead of 27.08.1956, before the decision of the writ petition, it so transpires that even as per the changed date of birth, she could have only continued upto 31.01.2023 i.e. on attaining the age of 60 years. Even as per changed date of birth, since she is already above the age of superannuation, her claim on that ground as well cannot be entertained at this stage.
7. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed.
