Dismissed¶30

Smt.gauri Bai Paikra v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC17 Jul 2024WPS/4355/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anganwadi Sahayika/Aanganbadi Sahayika superannuation at 62 years; reliance on voter ID as proof of date of birth rejected; voter-list age discrepancy (petitioner, husband, son all ~41); retirement order dated 04.08.2014 and letter 26.06.2014 (Annexure P-1) by Project Officer ICDS Lakhanpur not quashed; petitioner already retired 31.07.2014; writ petition dismissed, no costs; Chhattisgarh High Court, Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey, 18.07.2024; no statutory provisions or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

None — writ petition dismissed, no costs ordered. ¶30

Smt.gauri Bai Paikra Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — writ petition dismissed, no costs ordered.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's actual date of birth was the year 1967 (as indicated in her voter ID), so that, with the retirement age of an Anganwadi Sahayika being 62 years, she should have served until 2029 — making the retirement order Annexure P-1 dated 04.08.2014 erroneous and fit to be quashed. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

The petitioner's claim to quash Annexure P/1 dated 04.08.2014 rests solely on the voter ID indicating birth year 1967; there are no other relevant documents to establish that her actual date of birth is 1967.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

On a perusal of the voter list, the ages of the petitioner, her husband and her son appear almost identical (about 41 years each), which the Court finds appears to be erroneous.

¶29

Key takeaways

The petitioner had already retired from services on 31.07.2014 and was out of service.ratio¶29
The retirement order Annexure P/1 was passed on account of completion of the prescribed age of superannuation, i.e. 62 years — hence nothing remained for adjudication and no case was made out for interference.ratio¶29
In the Court's opinion, considering the above facts, no case is made out for interference in the instant petition; the petition therefore fails.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh HC (Bilaspur), single-judge order of Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey dated 18.07.2024, dismissed WPS No. 4355 of 2014 filed by Smt. Gauri Bai Paikra, an Anganwadi Sahayika appointed on 08.08.1996, who sought quashing of her retirement order dated 04.08.2014 and letter dated 26.06.2014 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Project Officer, ICDS Lakhanpur (Respondent No. 4). She argued her voter ID showed her birth year as 1967, and with the retirement age being 62 years she ought to have served till 2029. The Court held her claim rested solely on the voter ID with no other relevant document establishing the actual date of birth; the voter list showed the petitioner, her husband and her son all aged about 41 years, which appeared erroneous; she had already retired on 31.07.2014 and the order was passed on completing 62 years. Finding nothing surviving for adjudication, the Court dismissed the petition without costs.

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 4355 of 2014

¶4

Smt. Gauri Bai Paikra W/o Shri Kamalsai Paikra, Aged About 46 Years Aanganbadi Sahayika, At Centre Umroli, Post And Ps Lakhanpur, Civil And Revenue Distt Surguja, Cg, R/o Village Umroli, Post And Ps Lakhanpur, Civil And Revenue Distt Sarguja, Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Women And Child Development, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Civil And Revenue Distt Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

2. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Lakhanpur, Civil And Revenue Distt Sarguja, Chhattisgarh

¶9

3. District Program Officer, Women And Child Development Department, Ambikapur, Civil And Revenue Dist Sarguja, Chhattisgarh

¶10

4. Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Lakhanpur, Civil And Revenue Dist Sarguja, Chhattisgarh

¶11

5. Collector Sarguja Ambikapur, Civil And Revenue Distt Surguja, Chhattisgarh

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Sahu, Advocate

¶15

For Res./State : Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate

¶16

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶17

18.07.2024

¶18

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following

¶19

prayers:-

¶20

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable Writ(s), Order(s) and Direction (S) by quashing the impugned order dated 04/08/2014 and letter dated 26/06/2014 (both order and letter filed as AnnexureP-1), passed and issued from the office of Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Scheme Lakhanpur), District- Sarguja (C.G.)(Respondent No. 4), in respect to your petitioner.

¶21

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the respondents and courts below for its kind

¶22

¶23

perusal.

¶24

10.3 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.”

¶25

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Anganwadi Sahayika on 08.08.1996. He further submitted that the order of retirement of the petitioner was passed by respondent No. 4 on 04.08.2014 and pursuant to that order, the petitioner superannuated on 31.07.2014. He also submitted that in the voter ID, the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as the year 1967 and the age of retirement of Aanganwadi Sahayika was 62 years. He further contended that if the fact is taken as true that the petitioner was born in the year 1967, she should have retired from services in the year 2029. Thus, it is prayed that the order Annexure P/1 may be quashed.

¶26

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has not placed any relevant documents to establish her actual date of birth. Mr. Gupta further submitted that the voter ID cannot be treated as an authentic document with regard to the birth of a person. He also submitted that from a perusal of the voter list, it is apparent that the names of the petitioner, her husband and her son appear at serial No. 217, 218 and 26, respectively, and her son’s age was mentioned as 41 years. He further contended that if the age of the son of the petitioner was 41 years in the year 2013, it cannot be presumed that at that relevant time i.e. 2013, the age of the petitioner was also 41 years. It is also contended that the petitioner has already retired from services on 31.07.2014 therefore, nothing survives for adjudication.

¶27

4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶28

¶29

5. The claim of the petitioner for quashing Annnexure P/1 dated 04.08.2014 is based on voter ID, according to which the petitioner was born in the year 1967. There are no other relevant documents to hold that the actual date of birth of the petitioner is the year 1967 and from a perusal of the voter list it also appears that the age of the petitioner, her husband and her son are almost similar i.e. 41 years which appears to be erroneous. The petitioner retired from services on 31.07.2014 and she is out of service. The order Annexure P/1 was passed on account of completion of the age of superannuation i.e. 62 years.

¶30

6. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference in the instant petition. Hence, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed . No cost (s).

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶33

amita

Smt.gauri Bai Paikra v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.gauri Bai Paikra v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakhan Lal Sahu And Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Vs Coal India Limited And Anr.

Nandlal Patel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Bhuwneshwar Patel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

P.C. Raikwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Dr.ashok Kumar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.