Shriniwas Prabhakar Karve vs Swadhin Kshatriya And Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 1731 Bom

                                         1                    WP No.2345/2015

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                        
                            WRIT PETITION NO. 2345/2015




                                               
      Shriniwas s/o Prabhakar Karve,
      Age: 57 years, occu. Service,
      R/o. Hotel Ashwamedh, Aurangpura,
      Aurangabad.                                         .. Petitioner




                                              
                       VERSUS

      1.       The State of Maharashtra,
               Through Chief Secretary,




                                      
               Maharashtra State,
               Mantralaya, Mumbai.
                             
      2.       Principle Secretary,
               Tribal Development Department
               Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.
                            
      3.       Principle Secretary, 
               The Finance Department,
               Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
      


      4.       Principle Secretary,
               General Administration Department,
   



               Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.

      5.       Accountant General,
               Maharshi Karve Road,





               Mumbai.                                    .. Respondents

                                       WITH

                          CONTEMP PETITION NO.716 OF 2015





      Shriniwas s/o Prabhakar Karve,
      Age: 57 years, occu. Service,
      R/o. Hotel Ashwamedh, Aurangpura,
      Aurangabad.                                         .. Petitioner

                       VERSUS 

      1.       Shri Swadhin Kshatriya,
               Age : 58 years, Occu. Service,
               Chief Secretary, Mantralaya,




    ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2016                ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:17:03 :::
                                           2                     WP No.2345/2015

               Mumbai -32.




                                                                          
      2.       Shri Rajgopal Devra,
               Age: 52 years, Occu. Service,




                                                 
               Secretary, Tribal Dev. Dept.
               Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.

      3.       Shri Sambhaji Madhukar Sarkunde,
               Age:59 years, Occu. Service,




                                                
               Commissioner, Tribal Research and
               Training Institute,
               28, Queen's Garden, Pune -1.
                                             .. Respondents
                               ...




                                       
      Mr.Suresh M. Kulkarni, Advocate for Petitioner;
      Mr.S.B.Yawalkar, AGP for Respondents / State.
                              ig       -----
                            
                                   CORAM :    R.M.BORDE &
                                              P.R.BORA,JJ.

       
      DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 22
                                      nd
                                         
                                         March, 2016.
                                                     
       
      DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT 22
                                        
                                      nd
                                         APRIL,2016
                                                   
      


                                                 
   



      JUDGMENT (PER:-P.R.BORA,J.)

1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and

heard finally with consent of the learned Counsel

for the parties.

2) The present petition illustrates the

harassment suffered by a gazetted officer because

of the indifferent and callous attitude and

approach of the Government officials, in getting

corrected his date of birth, which was wrongly

recorded in his service book, without any fault

on his part,

3) The petitioner was selected through MPSC

as a lecturer and joined his services in the year

1984. At the relevant time, the Service Books of

the Gazetted officers used to be retained by the

office of the Accountant General of Maharashtra.

The said practice suffered change in the year

1989 and the Service books were then transferred

to the parent department from 1991 onwards. It

is the specific case of the present petitioner

throughout that after the service books were

transfered to the parent department, the

petitioner came to know that his date of birth

has been wrongly recorded in the service book as

1st March, 1957 instead of 16th January, 1958.

4) After being aware of the mistake so

occurred, the petitioner promptly filed a

representation on 4th February, 1993 with the

department for recording his correct date of

birth in the service book. However, nothing was

done for years together and the date of birth of

the petitioner remained as 1st March 1957.

5) As has been contended by the petitioner,

since in all other record including the seniority

lists prepared in the year 1984, and thereafter

his date of birth was correctly recorded as 16th

January, 1958 and as no such occasion arose which

would have caused any adverse effect on the

service career or future prospects of the

petitioner because of wrong date of birth

recorded in his service book, the petitioner did

not that zealously pursued the representation

submitted by him way back in the year 1993,

seeking correction in his date of birth.

6) However, after waiting for a long period

when nothing was communicated to him, the

petitioner moved another application on 22nd

September, 2009,requesting the

respondents/authorities to record his correct

date of birth in the service record. In the said

representation the petitioner referred to his

earlier representation dated 4th February, 1993

and also annexed the copy of the said

representation along with his fresh

representation. The petitioner also annexed with

his representation ample documentary evidence

evincing that his correct date of birth is 16th

January, 1958. The petitioner mentioned in his

representation that in his school record; SSC

Certificate; Pan Card; Driving licence; Insurance

Policies purchased by him, everywhere his date of

birth has been recorded as 16th January, 1958.

The petitioner has also contended in the said

representation that in the seniority list

prepared in the year 1984, his date of birth has

been correctly mentioned as 16th January, 1958.

The petitioner also provided a probable reason

for wrong recording of his date of birth in the

service record. The petitioner brought to the

notice of the respondents authorities that at the

relevant time, he and one another officer viz.

John Gaikwad were selected and given appointments

on the same day. The petitioner also informed the

respondents authorities that said John Gaikwad is

born on 1st March, 1957 and while mentioning the

date of birth in the service record of said

Gaikwad and the present petitioner, the same date

of birth has been recorded. It was pointed out

by the petitioner that the said mistake had

inadvertently occurred at the hands of the

official, who has filled in the particulars in

the service books of said John Gaikwad and the

present petitioner.

7) In spite of providing all such

information by the petitioner, his representation

was rejected by the respondents authorities vide

order dated 20.10.2011 on the ground that he did

not make application within five years of his

entering into the service. The petitioner was,

therefore, constrained to file an Original

Application No.734/2010 before the Maharashtra

Administrative Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal)

challenging the said order dated 20.10.2011.

8) As has been mentioned in the petition

and as is appearing from the material on record,

the respondents authorities in their affidavit in

reply, submitted in the aforesaid Original

Application No.734/2010, had accepted the fact

that the petitioner had filed the representation

for correction of his date of birth on 4.2.1993.

9) After having considered the material

placed on record, the learned Tribunal was

pleased to remand the matter to the Government,

vide order passed on 20th October, 2011,

directing the respondents authorities to take

appropriate decision within the stipulated

period.

10) The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.

9492/2011 before this Court taking exception to

the order of remand passed by the Tribunal.

During pendency of the aforesaid writ petition,

the department again rejected the petitioner's

application/representation on 24.11.2011 for the

same reason. The petitioner, therefore, made

necessary amendment in the writ petition filed by

him. The said writ petition was heard and

disposed of by this Court on 13th July, 2012. This

Court directed the Government to take a decision

on the application submitted by the petitioner

for correction in his date of birth by keeping in

mind that in his entire service record, his date

of birth has been mentioned as 16th January, 1958.

11) The Government, however, again refused

the request of the petitioner by communication

dated 10th December, 2013 on the same ground that

the application/representation filed by him was

time barred. The petitioner was left with no

other option except to file the Original

Application before the Tribunal, challenging the

said communication. Accordingly, the petitioner

filed Original Application No.134/2014. The

learned Tribunal partly allowed the said Original

Application vide order passed on 28th November,

2014, whereby the respondents were directed to

take a decision as regard recording the correct

date of birth of the petitioner.

12) It is the contention of the petitioner

that since he was to retire on 28th February, 2015

as per the date of birth wrongly recorded as

1.3.1957, he filed the present petition seeking a

writ of mandamus against the respondents to

record his correct date of birth in the service

record as 16th January, 1958.

13) On 27th February, 2015, this Court has

granted an interim relief in favour of the

petitioner not to retire him from the services

till the next date. The said interim relief has

been thereafter continued from time to time.

14) During pendency of the present petition,

as directed by the Tribunal, the respondents

reconsidered the representation of the petitioner

and again rejected the request of the petitioner

on 16th December, 2015, stating the same ground

that the petitioner did not file the

application/representation for correction in his

date of birth within the prescribed period of

limitation. The petitioner has challenged the

said order by filing a separate civil application

in the present writ petition.

15) Smt. Jija Sampat Sane, working as

Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development

Project, Aurangabad, has filed an affidavit in

reply on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2,

wherein the respondents have reiterated their

stand that the petitioner did not make the

representation within five years from the date of

entry in the service and, therefore, as per the

provisions contained in Rule 2(a)(1) in

Maharashtra Amendment No.MCS/1007/CR/7/ACR 61,

dated 24th December, 2008, the representation of

the petitioner has been rightly rejected.

16) The petitioner filed the affidavit in

rejoinder to the affidavit in reply filed on

behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Thereafter,

the additional affidavit in reply came to be

through Smt. Jija Sane, the Project Officer. In

the said affidavit in reply, the respondents have

denied that the petitioner and John Gaikwad

joined the services on one and the same day. It

is clarified that the petitioner joined on 14 th

March, 1984; whereas Shri John Gaikwad joined on

19th March, 1984.

17) We have carefully considered the entire

material on record. At the threshold, we wish

wish to state that we are fully convinced that

16th January, 1958 is the correct date of birth of

the petitioner and the same must have been record

in his Service Book.

18) The petitioner has placed on record

overwhelming evidence in support of his

contention that his date of birth recorded as 1st

March, 1957 in the service record is incorrect

and his correct date of birth is 16th January,

1958. The material on record show that in the

School Leaving Certificate as well as in S.C.C.

Certificate, the petitioner's date of birth is

recorded as 16th January, 1958. The Driving

License, which has been issued by the RTO

authorities in the name of the petitioner in the

year 1993, the petitioner's date of birth is

recorded as 16th January, 1958. In the PAN Card

and the Birth Certificate issued by Pune

Municipal Corporation also, the date of birth of

the petitioner is shown as 16th January, 1958. In

the insurance policy purchased by the petitioner

in the year 1988, his date of birth is mentioned

as 16th January, 1958. In the Seniority List

published by the respondent department on 1st

July, 1984, the date of birth of the petitioner

is shown as 16th January, 1958 and his name is

shown at Serial No.6 therein. The seniority

lists as on 1st January, 1991 and 1st January, 1994

also show the date of birth of the petitioner as

16th January, 1958.

. It is significant to note that the

respondents, along with affidavit in reply, have

filed a report submitted by the Deputy Secretary

on the representation of the petitioner, seeking

correction in his date of birth, which is at

pages 197 to 200 of the paper book. The report

clearly reveals that in the School Leaving

Certificate and in SCC Certificate of the

petitioner, his date of birth is shown as 16th

January, 1958. It has to be noted that the

School Leaving Certificate is of the date 28th

January, 1958; whereas the SSC certificate is of

the date 16th May, 1976.

19) If the aforesaid documentary evidence is

considered, there remains no doubt that the true

and correct date of birth of the petitioner is

16th January, 1958. The petitioner has admittedly

entered in Government Service in the year 1984.

The aforesaid documents are of the period much

prior to that. As such, no doubt can be raised

as regards the genuineness of the said documents.

There seems no reason to disbelieve these

documents. Further, as has come on record and

as we have mentioned earlier, in the PAN Card;

Driving License; Insurance Policies, everywhere,

the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned

as 16th January, 1958. We reiterate that the

Driving License has been issued in the name of

the petitioner in the year 1993; whereas the

insurance policy was purchased by him in the year

1988. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, in the

seniority lists published in the year 1984; 1988;

1991 and 1994, the date of birth of the

petitioner is recorded as 16th January, 1958. In

view of the evidence, as above, we have no

hesitation in recording a conclusion that the

true and correct date of birth of the petitioner

is 16th January, 1958 and not 19th March, 1957.

20) Now, the next question arises whether

the petitioner had submitted the applicant and/or

representation to correct his date of birth in

the service record within five years of his

entering the service. This issue assumes vital

importance for the reason that on this sole

ground, the representations of the petitioner

have been time and again rejected.

21) Admittedly, the petitioner has entered

into the government service in the year 1984. As

such, the application-representation submitted by

the petitioner on 21.2.2009, apparently appears

to have been filed beyond the period of

limitation. However, it cannot be ignored that

since beginning the petitioner has been stating

that he had filed such application/representation

firstly on 4.2.1993 and the same has not been

decided by the respondents.

22) It has to be stated that in the reply

affidavit filed by the respondents/authorities

before the Tribunal in OA No.734/2010, the

department has accepted that the petitioner had

filed such representation on 4.2.1993. Moreover,

the petitioner has plaed on record the copy of

the said representation dated 4.2.1993, which

bears an endorsement thereon, evidencing that the

said representation was duly received in the

office of the respondents. Thus, to determine

the controversy whether the petitioner preferred

the representation and/or application within the

stipulated period, the material date would be

4.2.1993 and not 21.2.2009. Ostensibly, the

application filed on 4.2.1993 also appears to be

beyond the period of five years since the

petitioner has entered into the services in the

year 1984. However, the petitioner has provided

the explanation in that regard also. As

contended by the petitioner, when he entered the

services, the service books of the Gazetted

Officers used to be retained by the Accountant

General of Maharashtra. It is the further

specific case pleaded by the petitioner that the

aforesaid practice was discontinued and the

service books were transferred to the parent

departments from 1991 onwards. The aforesaid

facts, which have been stated by the petitioner

in the present petition and which were also

stated by him in the Original Applications filed

before the Tribunal, have not been denied or

disputed by the respondents/authorities. Thus,

till 1991, the petitioner was not having any

access to his service book and, therefore, was

not having knowledge as to which date has been

recorded in his service book as his date of

birth.

23) The service book was presented before us

for our perusal. We have carefully perused 1st

page of the said service book, which demonstrates

that the particulars therein were filled in under

the signature of the Project Officer, Integrated

Tribal Development Project, Taloda on 12th April,

1991. The entry so made also shows that the date

of birth recorded as 1.3.1957 was recorded as per

the service record obtained from the office of

Accountant General. It is thus quite clear that

the representation by the petitioner to record

his correct date of birth was preferred within

five years of 12.04.1991, on which the date of

birth has been recorded as 01.03.1957 in the

service book of the petitioner. The period of

five years will have to be computed from the year

1991, since prior to that, neither the

petitioner, nor any of the officers in the

Integrated Tribal Development Project was having

any access or control over the service book which

were admittedly in custody and control of the

office of the Accountant General. The

application submitted by the petitioner on

04.02.1993 was thus well within the prescribed

period of the limitation.

24) As noted above, the respondents have

accepted that, such application was submitted by

the petitioner on 4.2.1993. The burden,

therefore, was on the respondents to explain as

to why the said representation was not decided by

them. When the respondents have not decided the

said representation and kept the said

representation pending for years together, no

blame can be attributed on the part of the

petitioner. Neither in the proceeding before the

Tribunal, nor in the writ petitions filed by the

petitioner before this Court, the respondents

have provided any explanation as to why the

representation filed by the petitioner way back

in the year 1993 remained undecided.

25) In the above circumstances, the

respondents are estopped from raising a plea that

the petitioner did not file the representation

seeking correction in his date of birth within

the prescribed period. It is really disgusting

that, even after the petitioner had brought all

the aforesaid facts to the notice of the

respondent authorities and submitted all relevant

documents in support of his claim, the respondent

authorities, have time and again blindly rejected

his request on the same ground that, he did not

submit the application within the period of five

years. It demonstrates utter non application of

mind and lack of sensitiveness on the part of the

concerned Government officials.

26) We express our serious concern over the

casual and callous approach of the respondents

authorities who have rejected the application of

the petitioner after passing of the order by this

Court on 13.07.2012 in writ petition

No.9492/2011. Vide the said order, this Court

had cast a burden on the respondents authorities

to find out as to on what basis the date of birth

of the petitioner was recorded in the service

book as 01.03.1957. This Court had also

indicated the respondents to find out whether it

was an error on the part of the department. It

seems that, the officer, who has subsequently

considered the representation of the petitioner

and rejected the same, did not bother to adhere

to the observations and directions given by this

court in order dated 13.07.2012 in writ petition

No.9422/2011 and had mechanically passed the

order thereby again rejecting the request of the

petitioner.

27) In order dated 16th December, 2015,

whereby the respondents have lastly rejected the

request of the petitioner to correct his date of

birth in his service record, reference is given

of Section 2(a)(1) of the Government Notification

dated 24th December, 2008, whereby the Maharashtra

Civil Services (General Conditions of Service)

Rules, came to be amended. The said Rule 2(a)

(1), reads thus, -

"2. In rule 38 of the Maharashtra

Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as "the principal Rules"), in sub-rule(2),

under the heading Instruction,-

(a) for Instruction No.(1) and (2), the following Instructions shall be substituted, namely:-

"(1) No application for alteration of the entry regarding date of birth as recorded in the service book or service roll of a Government servant, who has entered into the Government service on or after the 16th August 1981, shall be entertained after a period of five years commencing from the date of

his entry in Government Service."

28) We have elaborately discussed herein

above as to how the representation/application

submitted by the petitioner was within period of

five years of his entering into the service. We

need not to repeat the entire said discussion.

Vide the Notification dated 24th December, 2008,

the aforesaid amendment was made in Rule 38 of

the Maharashtra Civil Services (General

Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. Said Rule 38

lays down the procedure for, "Writing the events

and recording the date of birth in the service

book of a Government servant." Sub-clause (2) of

the said Rule specifically deals with the

recording of the date of birth and prescribes the

procedure to be followed. We deem it appropriate

to reproduce herein below the said Rule 38(2).

"38. Procedure for writing the events and recording the date of birth in the service book.

(1) ....................................

(2) While recording the date of birth, the following procedure should be followed:-

(a) The date of birth should be verified with reference to

documentary evidence and a certificate recorded to that effect

stating the nature of the document relied on;

(b) In the case of a Government servant

the year of whose birth is known but not the date, the 1st July should be treated as the date of birth;

(c) When both the year and the month of birth are known but not the exact

date, the 16th of the month should be treated as the date of birth;

(d) In the case of a Government servant who is only able to state his approximate age and who appears to the attesting authority to be of that age, the date of birth should

be assumed to be the corresponding date after deducting the number of

years representing his age from his date of appointment;

(e) When the date, month and year of

birth of a Government servant are not known, and he is unable to state his approximate age, the age by appearance as stated in the medical certificate of fitness, in

the form prescribed in rule 12 should be taken as correct, he being assumed to have completed that age on the date the certificate is given, and his date of birth deduced accordingly;

(f) When once an entry of age or date of birth has been made in a service book no alteration of the entry

should afterwards be allowed, unless it is known, that the entry was due

to want of care on the part of some person other than the individual in

question or is an obvious clerical error.;"

29) From the aforesaid Rule, it is quite

evident that it is obligatory upon the department

to correctly record the date of birth of an

employee in the service book. While recording

the date of birth, they have to follow the

prescribed procedure. The entry made in the

service book is treated as final. In terms of

clause (f) of Rule 38(2), when once an entry of

age or date of birth has been made in the service

book, no alteration of the entry should

thereafter be allowed unless it is known that the

entry was due to want of care on the part of some

person other than the individual in question or

is an obvious clerical error.

30) The order passed by this Court on

13.7.2012 in Writ Petition No. 9492/2011 was in

view of the aforesaid provision. In the said

order, this Court had directed the

respondents/authorities to find out whether it

was an error on the part of the department which

has resulted in incorrect recording the date of

birth of the petitioner or otherwise. However,

as we have noted earlier, the

respondents/authorities have ignored the said

directions and have again rejected the request of

the petitioner on the same ground. The

petitioner was consistent throughout in his

submission that his date of birth was incorrectly

recorded in the service book because of some

inadvertent mistake on the part of the concerned

employee, who has taken the said entry in his

service book. As we have stated above, Rule 38

casts an obligation upon the department to

correctly record the date of birth of an employee

in the service book and while recording the date

of birth, the prescribed procedure has to be

followed. We have also reproduced herein above

the procedure to be followed. Clause 2(a) of

Rule 38 specifically provides that the date of

birth should be verified with reference to the

documentary evidence and the certificate recorded

to that effect stating the nature of the document

relied on.

31) In the instant case, the perusal of the

petitioner's service book reveals that his date

of birth as 1.3.1957 has been recorded as per the

service record obtained from the Accountant

General. However, though several rounds of

litigation in this regard had taken place, in

none of the said proceedings, the

respondents/authorities have provided any

explanation as to relying on which document, the

date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as

1.3.1957 and which were the said documents

verified by the department while recording the

date of birth in the service book of the

petitioner.

32) We have mentioned earlier that the

School Leaving certificate and SSC certificate

are the documents, which are primarily relied

upon for verifying the date of birth. In both

these documents, the date of birth of the

petitioner is recorded as 16th January, 1958. The

respondents have not brought on record any

evidence to show that the date of birth, as

recorded in the service book, was on the basis of

any documentary evidence or the certificate

provided by the petitioner. The only inference,

therefore, emerges that incorrect entry as

regards to the date of birth in the service book

of the petitioner was not due to any mistake on

the part of the petitioner, but due to want of

care on the part of some other person, who was

entrusted with the duty to take such entry at the

relevant time and it obviously appears to be an

inadvertent clerical error.

33) The petitioner since beginning has been

saying that he and one John Gaikwad were selected

at a time and 1.3.1957 is the date of birth of

said John Gaikwad. There is every reason to

believe that the concerned employee inadvertently

or for want of care on his part, recorded the

same date of birth in the service book of John

Gaikwad and the present petitioner. In absence

of any evidence that the date of birth, as

recorded in the service book of the petitioner,

has been recorded on the instructions of the

petitioner or on the basis of any document or

certificate produced record by the petitioner, it

has to be held that same has been incorrectly

recorded due to want of care on the part of some

person other than the petitioner. In the

circumstances, the respondents must have accepted

the request of the petitioner and ought to have

corrected the date of birth in the service book

of the petitioner on the basis of overwhelming

documentary evidence produced by the petitioner

evidencing his date of birth as 16th January,

1958. The following instruction,

"(1) No application for alteration of the entry regarding date of birth as recorded in the service book or service roll of a Government servant, who has entered into the

Government service on or after the

16th August 1981, shall be entertained after a period of five

years commencing from the date of his entry in Government Service."

relying on which the respondents have repeatedly

rejected the request of the petitioner, in fact,

cannot be made applicable to the case of the

petitioner. The aforesaid instruction cannot be

isolatedly read. It has to be conjointly red

with Rule 38(2)(f), which reads thus, -

38(2)(f)- When once an entry of age or date of birth has been made in a service book no alteration of the

entry should afterwards be allowed, unless it is known, that the entry

was due to want of care on the part of some person other than the individual in question or is an obvious clerical error.;"

34) In view of the Rule quoted as above, the

excuse for not considering the request of the

petitioner in respect of correcting his date of

birth would not be available to the State

Government. Even otherwise, in peculiar facts

and circumstances of this case, there were lapses

on the part of the Stat Government in recording

the correct date of birth and making changes in

the record in respect of the date of birth of the

petitioner behind his back and as such, the State

Government needs to be directed to correct the

record.

35) After having considered the entire

material on record, we have reached to the

conclusion that the incorrect date of birth was

recorded in the service book of the petitioner

without any fault on his part, but due to want of

care on the part of some other person and though

the petitioner has submitted the representation

for correction of the said date of birth within

the stipulated period of five years, his date of

birth was not corrected and his

applications/representations were repeatedly

rejected on erroneous and unsustainable grounds

and the petitioner was unnecessarily harassed.

36) It is brought to our notice by the

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that

though there was an interim order passed by this

Court in favour of the petitioner not to retire

him until further orders, the respondents have

not paid the salary to the petitioner of the

period of about 12 months during which the

petitioner has worked throughout and duly

discharged his duties. We see no reason for not

paying the the salary to the petitioner when he

has worked in the relevant period and discharged

his duties cast on him. The learned Counsel has

further brought to our notice that the petitioner

has stopped attending the duties w.e.f. 31st

January, 2016 after he attained the age of

superannuation as per his date of birth as 16 th

January, 1958. There appears substance in the

allegation made by the petitioner that only

because the petitioner is fighting for his rights

and getting them established through the courts,

he is being victimized and put to harassment.

37) After having considered the facts of the

present case, which we have noted down in detail

in the earlier part of the judgment, we find that

the petitioner was unnecessarily harassed and

subjected to approach the Tribunal as well as

this court though his request for carrying out

correction in his date of birth wrongly recorded

in the Service Book, was liable to be considered

at the very first instance having regard to the

overwhelming evidence given by the petitioner in

order to support his contention that his true and

correct date of birth was 16th January, 1958 and

the date 1.3.1957 as recorded in the Service Book

was due to want of care on the part of the

concerned official, who has recorded the same.

In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to

award Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner by way of

costs.

38) In the result, the following order, -

ORDER

i) The respondents are directed to record

date of birth of the petitioner in the service

book and in all other service record as 16th

January, 1958 by correcting the previous record

showing the date of birth of the petitioner as

1.3.1957;

ii) The petitioner shall be considered to

have retired on attaining the age of

superannuation w.e.f. 31st January, 2016. The

respondents are directed to compute the pension

and other terminal benefits receivable by the

petitioner, treating the date of superannuation

of the petitioner as 16th January, 2016 and he

shall be paid the pensionary benefits as

expeditiously as possible and preferably within a

period of six months from today. The respondents

are further directed to pay to the petitioner the

arrears of salary within a period of six weeks

from today ;

iii) The respondents do pay Rs.25,000/- to

the petitioner by way of costs of the present

petition.

38) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid

terms. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand

disposed of. Contempt Petition stands disposed

of. Contempt Notice discharged.

              sd/-                                  sd/-                
            (P.R.BORA)                           (R.M.BORDE)
              JUDGE                                 JUDGE 
                 




                                      
                               

      bdv/
      fldr 11.4.16