Gujarat High Court
Executive Engineer, Pgvcl vs Vibhakar Prafullvadan Desai on 9 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8944/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8944 of 2008
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6045 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PGVCL & ANR.
Versus
VIBHAKAR PRAFULLVADAN DESAI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8944 OF 2008:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR NIRAD BUCH FOR MR MOUSAM R YAGNIK(3689) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6045 OF 2011:
MR NIRAD BUCH FOR MR MOUSAM R YAGNIK(3689) for the Petitioner(s)
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR AV NAIR for the Respondent(s) No. 5
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 and 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 09/07/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. As common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, at the request of learned advocates for the parties, these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.
Page 1 of 21 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:27:34 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8944/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined
2. Special Civil Application No.8944 of 2008 is filed for the following prayers:
"10(A) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit this petition.
(B) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition by passing writ of mandamus, certiorari or appropriate writ, order or direction by way of quashing and setting the award dated 21.1.2008 passed by the Ld.Labour Court No.2, Bhavnagar in Reference LCB No.117/06.
(C) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass interim order granting stay against the implementation, execution and operation of the impugned award passed by the Ld.Labour Court No.2, Bhavnagar in Reference LCB No.117/06. (D) xxxxx"
2.1 Special Civil Application No.6045 of 2011 is filed for the following prayers:
"6(A) Yours Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition;
(B) Your Lordship may pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ order or direction, directing the respondents, more particularly, the respondent no.1 to pay the arrears of Page 2 of 21 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:27:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8944/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined pension with effect from 30.09.2005 with 10% interest p.a. to the petitioner in one stroke and in the alternate to pay arrears of pension with 10% interest with effect from 30.09.2009 and further be pleased to direct the respondent no.1 to invest the amount of pension for the period between 30.09.2005 to 30.09.2005 (sic) 2009 in a fixed deposit and that the amount of interest accrued on the said amount be made available to the petitioner;
(C) xxxx"
3. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are such that the respondent was taken as Helper on 17.2.1975 and was promoted as Meter Reader on 8.12.1986 and as Junior Assistant on 24.1.2003; that at the time of joining the service, the petitioner produced his self affidavit by putting his date of birth as 22.9.1949; the respondent was, in compliance with the order of the Head Office of the company for verification of dates of birth of employees, asked to produce the authority for his said birth such as school/SSC certificate etc., however, the respondent failed to do so; therefore, the school directly called for such information from the respondent's school and the school furnished the information that the respondent's birth date is 22.9.1945; therefore, as the wrong date of birth based on the self- serving affidavit with nothing in corroboration was required to be corrected, the petitioner gave a show cause notice to Page 3 of 21 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:27:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8944/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined the respondent to which the respondent did not reply; and again another show cause notice was issued, which was also not replied and therefore, the petitioner corrected the date of birth in the records, and the respondent was informed; thereafter, based on the said date, on completion of 60 years i.e. on 30.9.2005, he was retired as per service rules and he received all the retiral benefits and thereafter, after 8 months, the respondent raised a dispute which was referred to the learned Labour Court No.2, Bhavnagar ending in Reference LCB No.117 of 2006, in which the impugned award is passed on 21.1.2008 partly allowing the reference and quashing and setting aside the order of retirement of the respondent and directing the petitioner to reinstate him in service with continuity of service, full salary and all other service benefits taking his date of birth as 22.9.1949 and not 22.9.1945. Hence, the petition no.8944 of 2008 is filed by the petitioner-board.
3.1 Special Civil Application No.6045 of 2011 is filed by the respondent of Special Civil Application No.8944 of 2008 stating that on 22.9.2003, the petitioner submitted a form for being admitted in the pension scheme; vide order dated 29.11.2004, the order was passed to accord sanction for the payment of 90% of Contributory Pension Fund (CPF) in pursuance of the application dated 29.10.2004; the petitioner Page 4 of 21 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:27:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8944/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined was granted sum of Rs.1,98,952/- towards payment of gratuity vide order dated 14.11.2005 considering the date of retirement of the petitioner to be 30.09.2005; on 21.9.2007, the petitioner was informed that the full pension would be applied only after 21.9.2007 in view of the fact that the date of birth recorded in the register of service book is 22.9.1949; the petition being Special Civil Application No.8944 of 2008 is admitted by this Court and therefore he preferred an application in which, vide order dated 19.12.2008, the application of the petitioner for grant of benefit of Section 17B wages to the petitioner was allowed; vide order dated 29.9.2009 passed in the application for modification of the order, it was observed by coordinate Bench of this Court that even as per the date of birth claimed by the petitioner, the petitioner would reach the age of superannuation on 30.9.2009 and therefore the petitioner would not be entitled for Section 17B wages and the same were not paid from 29.9.2009; that though the petitioner stands retired from 30.9.2009l he is not paid the pension from 30.9.2009 and though it was clearly requested vide letter dated 16.1.2010 to the respondent no.1 to grant pension to the petitioner, no heed is paid to the petitioner and therefore this petition is filed by the petitioner.
Page 5 of 21 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:27:34 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8944/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined
4. Heard learned advocates for the parties. 4.1 Learned advocate Mr.Dave for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.8944 of 2008 has submitted that the respondent's date of birth recorded in his school is 22.9.1945, but when he joined service on 17.12.1975 as a helper, the date was recorded as 22.9.1949 on the basis of his self- serving affidavit dated 16.9.1974. From the record also, it transpires that the date of birth of the respondent in th the marksheet of the 10 standard examination also mentioned as 22.9.1945 and not 22.9.1949. Therefore, the respondent has not declared this vital fact during the course of service and on the contrary, has wrongly taken the benefit by filing affidavit on the basis of horoscope which is otherwise not permissible under the law. The respondent was retired on 30.9.2005 on completion of 60 years of the age as per the birth date dated 22.9.1945. Thereafter, the respondent has accepted the retirement order and retiral benefits without any objection and after 8 months of cheerful retirement, the respondent raised the dispute which is considered by the learned Labour Court as Reference No.117 of 2006, whereby the correction of the birth date made by the petitioner was set aside and issued direction to the petitioner to reinstate him in service with all benefits taking his birth date as 22.9.1949.
Page 6 of 21 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:27:34 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8944/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined 4.2 In this background, he raised three contentions; firstly, by drawing attention of this Court towards the terms of reference, whereby the only aspect which is considered is that since the respondent was relieved on 30.9.2005 was required to be reinstated at his original place or not. There is no other terms of reference even then, the learned Labour Court has committed error in considering the aspect about the right of the respondent and that the petitioner has not acted promptly and has corrected the birth date at later stage and therefore the impugned order of the petitioner was quashed. He contended that without challenge to that order, by which the birth date is corrected, such consideration by the learned Labour Court is not permissible under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and therefore the impugned judgment is passed without jurisdiction and therefore required to be quashed and set aside. 4.3 Secondly, the learned Labour Court has grievously erred in relying on the respondent's affidavit as evidence for the birth date without giving preference to the respondent's school certificate. It is now well established that date of birth in matriculation certificate carries more probative value than the affidavit.
4.4 Thirdly, relying on the judgments in the cases of Page 7 of 21 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:27:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8944/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat V/s Perfect Pottery Co.Ltd. Reported in 1979(3) SCC 762; F T and R Co of India (P) Ltd V/s ITS Workmen Employees Union, reported in 1981(3) SCC 451, Gujarat Electricity Board V/s ND Dawda decided on 9.2.2005 in Letters Patent Appeal No.358 of 2003 and submitted that it is not correct to say that the board has no authority to look into the validity of the certificate issued by First Class Magistrate or refuse to accept it, which is a good evidence. In the present case, no order is passed by the First Class Magistrate but it is on the basis of affidavit of respondent claiming his birth date of year 1949 instead of 1945. Therefore, he has submitted that from any angle the judgment passed by the learned Labour Court, more particularly, considering the reason that after delay, board cannot consider the birth certificate which issue is now covered by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.358 of 2003 and in absence of any specific pleading by the respondent before the Labour Court, learned Labour Court has erred in granting the prayer of gainful employment. The learned Tribunal has erred in granting full back wages and therefore he has submitted that the present petition be allowed.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Buch for the respondent has contended that the learned Tribunal has not committed any Page 8 of 21 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:27:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8944/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined error as, if the employee cannot be permitted to change his record of service by amending the birth date, then on the same basis, the employer is also not permitted to change the service record, that too unilaterally. He has submitted that it is tried to establish that by issuing show cause notice, the liberty is given to the petitioner for hearing, however, as such no effective hearing is given and therefore the action of the present petitioner to correct the date without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the respondent employee is against the principle of natural justice and the learned Labour Court has rightly interfered with the order passed by the authority by correcting the date of birth from 1945 to 1949.
5.1 In support of his contention, he has submitted that this Court has considered a similar issue in the case of Shankar Lal V/s Hindustan Copper Ltd., reported in 2022(0) AIJEL- SC 244388 in case of Manager, Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited, Sub Division, Idar V/s Desai Gemarbhai Jesingbhai and has submitted that in identical facts, the Court has given the specific finding in paragraph 6 and submitted that the change of date of birth at the fag end is not permissible.
5.2 He also relied on the judgment in the case of Page 9 of 21 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:27:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8944/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined Shankar Lal V/s Hindustan Copper Ltd., reported in 2022(6) SCC 211, more particularly, paragraphs nos.16,17 and 22 and submitted that even the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that such correction is not permissible at belated stage and that the contention raised by the petitioner by drawing attention towards the issue framed by the learned Tribunal that in absence of specific issue, the learned Labour Court has erred in giving the relief is not proper, as the issues which are framed also covers the issue regarding the date of birth and therefore it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction beyond the scope of reference and therefore on that count also, the petition is required to be dismissed.
5.3 Lastly, he submitted that regarding the aspect of gainful employment, the petitioner has during his cross examination and at the time of argument, has specifically pleaded that he is not gainfully employed anywhere and therefore such contentions regarding the gainful employment and awarding backwages are misconceived and required to be dismissed. That now, as per the order of the learned Tribunal, the pension is fixed by considering the date of retirement from 2009 and therefore also interference is not called for.
Page 10 of 21 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:27:34 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8944/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined 5.4 He has submitted that the issue regarding the delay is also considered by this Court in Special Civil Application No.20020 of 2006 dated 13.4.2017 in paragraphs 6,7,8,9. He submitted that therefore this petition is required to be dismissed as the petitioner has not satisfactorily explained the delay and learned Labour Court has rightly exercised the power vested in the Labour Court by allowing reference by holding that the birth date of the respondent should be considered of 1949 and not of 1945.
6. Learned advocate Mr.Nair appearing for respondent no.5 in Special Civil Application No.6045 of 2011 has submitted that pursuant to the order passed by the learned Labour Court, the pension is fixed and the birth date is considered as 22.9.1949. If the petition of the board is dismissed, then the further order is required to be passed to recover the amount of difference or adjust the amount of pension accordingly by concerned authority by considering the date of birth on the basis of 1945 and if the petition of the respondent is dismissed then there is no question to give direction as the order of the Labour Court is already implemented.
7. Learned advocate Mr.Dave, in response to the above submissions made by learned advocate Mr.Buch, has Page 11 of 21 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:27:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8944/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined submitted that necessary procedure is followed by the board for calling upon the petitioner to provide documents and after receiving reply that he is not having the documents, the petitioner has obtained the documents from the concerned school and therefore it cannot be said that there is any violation of principles of natural justice.
8. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and also considered the material on record. It is a matter of fact that the present petitioner has joined the services and at that time, affidavit was filed by him by mentioning that his correct date of birth is of 1949 which is on the basis of horoscope available on the record. Except this, during the course of trial before the Labour Court, the respondent has submitted only one document i.e. LIC policy where his birth date is mentioned as 1949. It transpires that from the school record which is available after communication made by the petitioner to the concerned school, it clearly indicates that the date of birth of the petitioner is 1945 and not 1949. Moreover, the documents which are produced by respondent no.5 in another petition which is marksheet of SSC examination also indicates that the date of birth is of 1945 and not 1949.
9. Keeping this factual situation in the back of mind, Page 12 of 21 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:27:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8944/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined it is required to be noted that at the time of appointment of the respondent as a helper in the Gujarat Electricity Board, he had already passed the examination of SSC and he was having copy of the said marksheet with him and even then he has denied that he is not holding any document, and he has filed the affidavit by stating that his birth date is of 1949 and not 1945 which is discovered from the record of the school as well as marksheet from the board examination. That this exercise is carried out later on by the petitioner authority and after the petitioner asked to provide the certificate more particularly the SSC and matriculation certificate, the present respondent failed to provide the certificate to the petitioner board. Therefore, the petitioner- board tried to obtain the same from the particular school and as per certificate received by the board from the school, which is part of the record, it clearly indicates that the birth date is of 1945 of the respondent and therefore, it is clearly established that the respondent has suppressed this fact at the time of joining by relying merely on horoscope and therefore, it can be said that the document of SSC, though was available with the respondent, was not produced on the record with some purpose.
10. In this background, for considering the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the terms of reference, it Page 13 of 21 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:27:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8944/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined is relevant to refer to the following judgments:
10.1 In the case of Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat (supra), it is held that the contention raised that Tribunals had no jurisdiction to consider the question as regards propriety or justification of the management's decision to close down the business, references being limited to narrow question as to whether the closure was proper and justified, Tribunals by very terms of reference, had no jurisdiction to go behind the fact of closure and inquire into question whether business was in fact closed down by the management.
10.2 In the case of FT and R Co of India (P) Ltd.
(supra), it is held as under:
"Tribunal cannot act outside the terms of reference - Where the points of dispute were specified in the schedule to the order of reference, and the Tribunal was, therefore, required to confine its adjudication to those points and matters that were incidental to them. From a reading of demands 1(A) and 1(B) as a whole it is clear that the demand for reinstatement in respect of both groups of workmen as made arises on the alleged invalidity of the action taken by the management in dismissing these workmen. The issue of unfair labour practice or discrimination by reason of subsequent reinstatement on a permanent basis of some and Page 14 of 21 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:27:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8944/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined not all the 25 workmen was not a matter referred to the Tribunal for adjudication, nor it can be said to be in any way connected with or incidental to the right of reinstatement claimed by the 101 workmen is a matter quite irrelevant for judging the validity of the earlier dismissal of these workmen along with others; it is an entirely separately and independent question. The Tribunal also did not frame an issue on the alleged discrimination. That being so, the Tribunal travelled outside its jurisdiction in recording a finding of unfair labour practice and discrimination."
10.3 In view of this, considering the terms of reference in this matter, it can be said that the learned Labour Court has considered the issue which is outside the scope of the terms of reference.
10.4 Further, as regards the judgment which is cited by learned advocate Mr.Buch in support of his submission in the case of Manager, Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited, Sub Division Idar (supra), it is observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 2.1 and 6 as under:
"2.1 Aggrieved by this action of the employer of retiring him in the year 2012 with effect from 30.06.2010, the respondent raised a dispute before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, based on the evidence that was recorded, came to the conclusion that when the respondent was appointed and Page 15 of 21 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:27:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8944/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined resumed his duties on 19.04.1982, he had produced an affidavit dated 26.03.1981 stating that his date of birth recorded in the birth certificate as 01.06.1950 was wrong.
6. A crucial finding that needs to be appreciated of the Labour Court is that upto 31.08.2012, all these documents namely the affidavit which recorded 01.04.1954 as the date of birth, the certificate recording the date as 01.06.1950 and the School Leaving Certificate which also recorded the date of birth as 01.06.1950 were in the possession of employer. These documents were the set of documents produced by the employee when the secured appointment on 01.04.1982. Based on the affidavit the employer recorded 01.04.1954 as the date of birth and did not think it fit to change it to 1950 for over a period of 30 years and only in the fag end of 2012 did the employer to the adversity of the respondent seek to change the date of birth based on these documents of which the employer already had knowledge when the respondent was appointed."
10.5 There cannot be any dispute about the proposition of law but the facts are different. In that case, on the basis of the said exercise carried out by the board, services of the respondent were terminated and that order was challenged by way of reference, however, in the present case, the petitioner has already passed the order by fixing the birth date of the petitioner as 1945 and that order was never challenged by Page 16 of 21 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:27:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8944/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined the respondent during his service tenure and later on, after period of 8 months, after retirement, he challenged the same and the Labour Court has erred in considering this aspect while considering the reference which is specifically required to be decided within the terms of reference not beyond that. Therefore, the judgment is not helpful to the facts of the present case of the respondent.
10.6 In the case of Shankarlal (supra), it is held in paragraphs 12, 16 and 17 as under:
"12. The stand of the employer, thus, is that in his service book there was error in recording the age of the appellant as 26 years in 1975 and we ought not to give any credence to such recordal. The respondents had only corrected an error and such recordal in service book cannot be treated to be acceptance of the appellant's date of birth as 21st September 1949. We, however, find that the authorities proceeded in this matter in a rather mechanical manner and embarked on a unilateral exercise of correcting the age entry in the service book on their perception that an error was being corrected. This exercise was conducted without giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellant and at the fag end of his service tenure. Otherwise, various documents including the L.I.C. policy consistently reflect 21st September 1949 to be the appellant's birthdate.
16. This is not a case where a workman is seeking to Page 17 of 21 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:27:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8944/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined change his date of birth to his benefit at the end of his career. This is a case where the employer is altering the records at the end of the career of the workman to his detriment on taking unilateral decision that the date of birth specified in the appellant's service book was erroneous, relying on a date disclosed in a statutory form. Turning to Clause 5 of the Standing Order, we have already expressed our view on the evidentiary value of the entries in Form "B"
as regards date of birth of a workman. In the committee report, the DPE's guidelines dated 9th February, 2001 has been referred to, which deals with alteration of the date of birth of an employee. The report records: -
"1. As per the DPE's guidelines dated 9.2.2001, an alteration of date of birth of an employee may be considered with the sanction of the Board of Directors, if (a) request in this regard is made within 5 years of his entry into the service of the Public Sector Undertaking
(b) It is clear established that a genuine bonafide mistake had occurred.
(c) and date of birth so altered should not make him ineligible to appear in any school/University in which he had appeared or for entry in Public Sector Service on the date on which he first appeared at such examination or on the date on which he entered the Public Sector Services."
(quoted verbatim from the paperbook)
17. Though in the Form "B", the appellant's age in 1971 Page 18 of 21 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:27:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8944/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined was given as 26 years (the date of birth shown as 21st September 1945), in the subsequent documents the date appearing in service book had been reflected and it was the date reflected in the service book which formed the basis of the pay-slips as also the estimate statement of the appellant's voluntary retirement benefits. In such circumstances, the appellant's failure to seek correction in the Form "B" register could be condoned." 10.7 There cannot be any dispute about the proposition of law. It is also relevant to note that in paragraph 12, it is specifically observed that because the order is passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellant and therefore at the fag end of service tenure, such exercise is not approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the present case, in fact, the petitioner has issued the notice in response to which the respondent has replied that he is not having any documents and on therefore, the petitioner has obtained the certificate from the concerned school. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said exercise is without affording opportunity of hearing and therefore the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
10.8 In paragraph 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal no.358 of 2003, it is held by Division Bench of this Court as under:
Page 19 of 21 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:27:34 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8944/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined "The learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the petitioner board has collected the evidence behind the back of the respondent and on the basis of certificate obtained by the petitioner, the birth date in the service register is corrected at the relevant point of time of course at a belated stage. Then also, from the above observation, it can be said that in the present case also, no explanation has come forth from the respondent employee how the incorrect entry was made in the school record nor the school record was ever corrected. It is also not correct to say that the petitioner board has no authority to look into the validity of the affidavit filed at the relevant point of time after lapse of such period."
10.9 In view of the above, the judgment of the learned Tribunal is erroneous and is required to be quashed and set aside as it is not maintainable in the eye of law. Hence, the petition being Special Civil Application No.8944 of 2008 is allowed in terms of paragraph 10(B). Rule is made absolute.
11. As the petition filed by the petitioner-board is allowed as mentioned hereinabove, the petition being Special Civil Application No.6045 of 2011 filed by the respondent is dismissed with no order as to costs with a further clarification that since the order of the learned Tribunal is already implemented by the respondent no.5 authority, Page 20 of 21 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:27:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8944/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined necessary action may be taken by the authority accordingly.
Further order may be passed for payment of pensionary benefits which shall be considered as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Rule is discharged.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) SRILATHA Page 21 of 21 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:27:34 IST 2025