MANU/MH/1950/2023

True Court CopyTM

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 9744 of 2023

Decided On: 30.05.2023

Appellants: Gajanan B. Rabde Vs. Respondent: The Chief Administrative Officer, Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R.D. Dhanuka, C.J. and G.S. Kulkarni

ORDER

G.S. Kulkarni, J.

1. The Petitioner who is in employment of the respondents-Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran has approached this Court at the fag end of his service tenure praying for change of his date of birth in the service record from 4 June, 1965 to 26 August, 1966.

2. The petitioner joined the employment of the Respondent No. 1 on 4 January, 1990 declaring his date of birth as recorded by respondent No. 1 as 4 June, 1965, which is stated to be recorded on the basis of the school leaving certificate dated 6 June, 1985, a copy of which is annexed at Exhibit-A to the petition.

3. The case of the petitioner is that on 30 April, 1990 he obtained a domicile certificate from Tahsildar/Executive Magistrate, Motala, District Buldana in which his date of birth was shown as 26th August, 1966. The basis of which the domicile certificate is issued by the Executive Magistrate has not been stated in the petition. The Petitioner has contended that after having obtained the domicile certificate, the Petitioner on 7th May, 1990 made an application to the Petitioner No. 1 for change of date of birth from 4th June, 1965 to 26th August, 1966, a copy of the said application is annexed at Exhibit-D to the petition. Perusal of the said application indicates that such representation was purely based on the domicile certificate and not any certificate. The petitioner having made any such representation/ application dated 7 May 1990 is seriously disputed by the respondents inter alia contending that it is not on record of the respondents.

4. It is quite peculiar that since 7 May, 1990 till the fag-end of his service tenure, the petitioner did not take any steps to pursue the petitioner's case on the purported representation dated 7 May, 1990. It appears that on the eve of his retirement, the petitioner obtained a birth certificate from the Health Department office at Taroda, Taluka Motala, District Buldana, dated 12 January, 2022 indicating the petitioner's date of birth to be 26 August, 1966. It appears from the perusal of the certificate that although the certificate shows the petitioner to have born on 26 August 1966, the registration of the said date of birth was in fact made on 13 December 1993 which is about 27 years after the petitioner's birth and 3 years after he joined the employment with respondent No. 1. Having obtained the birth certificate, the petitioner made a fresh application on 24 February, 2023 to respondent No. 1, requesting that his date of birth in the service record be modified/changed from 4 June, 1965 to 26 August, 1966. On a perusal of the said application, it is seen that again the request of the petitioner was only on the basis of domicile certificate which was issued to the petitioner on 30 April, 1990, as in such application, there is no reference to the birth certificate obtained by the petitioner on 12 January, 2022. This does not appear to be innocuous considering the nature of the birth certificate.

5. As the petitioner's application for change in the date of birth in the service record was not considered/accepted by respondent No. 1, the petitioner has approached this Court by the present proceedings praying for writ of mandamus that respondent nos. 1 and 2 be directed to correct the date of birth of the Petitioner in the service book from 4 June, 1965 to 26 August, 1966 and for a further relief that the respondents be directed not to initiate retirement process to superannuate the Petitioner pending the final disposal of the petition.

6. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner has limited submissions. His first submission is to the effect that the petitioner's representation/application for change in the date of birth dated 7 May, 1990 was kept pending by the respondents and the same was not decided and therefor........