Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: BOCWW in Raghunath vs Delhi Building And Other Construction ... on 13 April, 2023Matching Fragments
9. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has also contended in the reply that as per Rule 266(2) of the Rules, the age affidavit is the only prescribed proof of age. The relevant extracts of the said reply are extracted as under:
"It is submitted that the impugned deficiency letter dated 10 June 2020 wrongly records his retirement age as 01.01.2017. Whereas, the correct date as to when Mr. Raghunath turned 60 was 01.01.2015. That is the date which is recorded in his registration card and he has given the affidavit to prove his age in terms of Rule 266(2), Delhi BOCWW Rules. Copy of the age affidavit of Mr. Raghunath is hereto annexed and marked as Annexure B. Even in the aadhaar card of Mr. Raghunath, date of birth is recorded as 01.01.2015 only. Therefore, the deficiency highlighted by you is incorrect and contrary to record. Copy of Mr. Raghunath's aadhaar card is hereto annexed as Annexure C. It is submitted that the Delhi BOCWW Rules no where permit the Board to rely upon Aadhaar card for proof of age, for the reason that the data entered into UIDAI database by private operators is not reliable and cannot be the basis for ascertaining demographic facts. Whereas, on the other hand, the age affidavit is not only prescribed as proof of age as per Rule 266(2), it was also furnished at the time of registration by Mr. Raghunath.