THE CORRECT VERIFICATION OF THE AGE AND THE DATE OF BIRTH WAS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR FOR THE RETIREMENT: ODISHA HIGH COURT
This particular decision is upheld by the High Court of Odisha through the division bench of Justice G.K.Mishra in the case of State Of Orissa V Binapani Dei (1967) 2 SCR 625 : (1967) 2 LLJ 266 : 1967 MPLJ 932 : (1967) 15 FLR 209 : 1967 Mah LJ 993 : 12 Law Rep 519 : AIR 1967 SC 1269
FACTS:
In the State of Orissa v Binapani Dei case, the respondent, Binapani Dei was the MBBS degree holder of Punjab University. She was a diploma in the gynecology and obstetrics from Madras University and also a diploma in obstetrics from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of London. She was appointed as an Assistant Surgeon in the Orissa medial service in 12th June, 1938. So, according to the records, Binapani’s birth date was determined to be April 10, 1910, which was also verified by her father and acknowledged as the true date of birth that was mentioned there. Construing to the same, the Government of Orissa registered the same as it is. As asserted by the employees retiring after December 1, 1962, the age of superannuation was raised to 58 years from the age of 55. A writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India was also filed at the High Court of Orissa, asserting the fact that the State Government’s retirement decision was unconstitutional and it also violated constitutional law and natural justice principles. Additionally, certain anonymous letters were received by the state’s accountant general, petitioning the explanation why the birth certificate issued had not been validated and the same if exposed to the enquiry is not notified to the respondent in the present case therefore the respondent claiming the breach of natural justice.
JUDGEMENT:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court decided and emphasized the correct verification of the age and the date of birth of the respondent as it was one of the most important factor for the retirement and accordingly the pension has to be decided. In the case of Binapani, the date of birth was arranged on the registers of the government authorities and the institution arbitrarily thus detaining her from doing her job and there was a compulsory retirement that was imposed on her as according to the arbitrary listing of the age, she became eligible to retirement. The Supreme Court of India set aside the decision of the state government regarding the arbitrary listing of Binapani’s age in the register and show causing her to justify for the same. In its decision, the Supreme Court also made the state government responsible for e arbitrary listing of the age contrary to the real age of the respondent and also acting contrary to the principle of natural justice and the principle of ‘Audi Alteram Partem’.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY NAISARGIKA MISHRA