Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 16982 (RAJ)

LAXMI DEVI W/O PRAHLAD v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CW/7023/2025 · 2025-07-02

Sudesh Bansal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:24192] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7023/2025 Laxmi Devi W/o Prahlad, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Garhi Mamod, Garhi District Alwar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Women And Child Development Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director-Cum-Dy. Secretary, Integrated Child Development Service Department Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Dy. Director, Women And Child Development Department, Alwar. 4. The Child Development Project Officer (Cdpo), Thanagazi, District Alwar ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Chand Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 02/07/2025 1. Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in order to assail the order dated 31.01.2024 whereby and whereunder petitioner as Sahayika has been retired w.e.f. 31.01.2024 treating her date of birth dated 05.01.1963 on attaining the superannuation age of 61 years in terms of order dated 12.01.2023 passed by the Director- cum-Deputy Secretary, Integrated Child Development Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on certain documents including Transfer Certificate, Voter ID Card and other [2025:RJ-JP:24192] (2 of 2) [CW-7023/2025] similar documents to show that the actual and correct date of birth of petitioner is 02.01.1979. In the portal maintained before the Department, her date of birth as 05.01.1963 is incorrect date of birth, hence, seeking certain correction in her date of birth, petitioner has impugned her order of superannuation dated 31.01.2024. 3. Having heard counsel for petitioner and from perusal of the documents, this Court finds that petitioner has raised a disputed question of fact in respect of her date of birth. It is matter of evidence as to which date of birth of petitioner i.e. either 05.01.1963 or 02.01.1979, is correct? 4. After arguing for some time, counsel for petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file a Civil Suit for declaration in respect of her correct date of birth. 5. In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file a Civil Suit seeking declaration in respect of her correct date of birth. 6. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /31