Mukund Atmaram Ingle vs The State Of Maharashtra , Through ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7582 Bom

Dixit
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                               WRIT PETITION NO.10661 OF 2017
        Mukund Atmaram Ingle,                               ]
        Aged about 56 years,                                ]
        Occupation : Service,                               ]
        R/of Ujjani Officers' Colony,                       ]
        Gurunanak Chowk, Solapur.                           ] .... Petitioner
                 Versus
        1. The State of Maharashtra,                        ]
           Through the Secretary,                           ]
           Water Resources Department,                      ]
           Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.                         ]
                                                            ]
        2. Superintending Engineer,                         ]
           Small Scale Irrigation (W.C.) Circle,            ]
           Yerawada, Pune.                                  ]
                                                            ]
        3. Superintending Engineer,                         ]
           Bhima Canal Circle,                              ]
           Gurunanak Chowk, Solapur.                        ] .... Respondents

Mr. Nitin P. Dalvi for the Petitioner.

Mr. N.C. Walimbe, A.G.P., for the Respondents.

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.J.

DATE : 26TH SEPTEMBER, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT : [ Per Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J. ]

1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned A.G.P. for

all the Respondents. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable

forthwith and the matter is heard finally.

WP-10661-17.doc

2. The Petitioner joined Government service on 26 th December

1983 as 'Junior Engineer'. As per the details given by the Petitioner,

at that time, his 'Date of Birth' was recorded as "10 th October 1959".

For the first time, on 20th November 1998, the Petitioner made an

application to the concerned authorities for change of his date of

birth from 10th October 1959 to 10th October 1960. That request was

based on a certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Mehkar in Buldhana

District. As there was no response from the Respondents, on 4 th May

2007, the Petitioner made another representation to the Secretary,

Irrigation Department, in relation to the change of his date of birth.

Again, as there was on response, on 26 th June 2015, he made a

representation to the Chief Secretary and by communication dated

20th July 2016, he was informed that his request was rejected. Being

aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner preferred Original Application

before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai. The said

Original Application was presented on 6th January 2017. The said

Original Application came to be dismissed by order dated 11 th

September 2017; hence this Petition.

3. The case of the Petitioner is that, he approached the

WP-10661-17.doc

Tahasildar, Mehkar, Dist. Buldhana, searching for his date of birth in

the year 1987. Thus, it is seen that the Petitioner joined Government

service on 26th December 1983; however, for four years after joining

service, he did not take any steps in the matter. From the contents of

the Original Application, it appears that the Petitioner was born at the

place of his maternal father. It is his case that in the year 1987,

Tahasildar, Mehkar did not give him the 'Extract' of the relevant

record on the ground that, as a result of flood, most of the record got

damaged; therefore, he could not get the 'Extract' immediately.

4. As stated earlier, for the first time, the Petitioner made an

application on 20th November 1998 to the concerned authorities for

change of his date of birth. He did not receive any response to the

same. Thus, it is seen that, in the year 1998, the Petitioner realized

that his move has not succeeded, or, at-least, it can be said that he

came to know that his application was not being accepted. However,

the Petitioner did not do anything, except making representations on

4th May 2007 and 26th June 2015. Thus, it is seen that these

representations too were made after a gap of about seven to eight

years of each representation.

WP-10661-17.doc

5. As stated earlier, the Original Application was presented on 6 th

January 2017 and as the Petitioner is due to retire on 30 th October

2017, it can be said that the Original Application was preferred

almost on the eve of retirement of the Petitioner. Thus, there is no

escape from the conclusion that, as the Original Application was

presented almost on the eve of retirement, it would be hit by the

Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra

and Anr. Vs. Gorakhnath S. Kamble & Ors., (2010) 14 SCC 423,

which was referred to in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Chhota

Birsa Uranw, AIR 2014 SC 1975.

6. In the discussion, from paragraph No.12 onwards, in the case

of Gorakhnath S. Kamble (Supra), the Supreme Court was pleased

to refer to a number of earlier Judgments of the Supreme Court,

which held that, "change of date of birth should not be allowed to be

made when it was applied for by the employee on the eve of his

retirement". It was also observed that, "such a move on the eve of

the retirement of an employee also adversely affects the chances of

others, who are patiently waiting in the queue for being promoted".

7. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the Petitioner placed

WP-10661-17.doc

reliance on the two decisions of this Court in the cases of Shriniwas

Prabhakar Karve Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2017 (2) ALL

MR 328, and Ashok P. Meshram Vs. Head Master, Zilla Parishad

High School, Palandur (Chauras) and Anr., 2014 (6) MLJ 590. In

both these cases, the mistake occurred from the side of the Office to

record the correct date of birth of the said Applicants. In both of

them, in the ultimate analysis, the move for change of date of birth

was not suffering from latches. Though a period of more than five

years had elapsed in Shriniwas Karve's case, but that was because

the record of the said Applicant, as per the then prevalent procedure,

was maintained elsewhere and, therefore, the application could not

be assailed on the ground of delay. The facts in the present case

being entirely different, the decision in the case of Shriniwas Karve

and Ashok Meshram (Supra) cannot be made applicable to the

present case.

8. Both in Shriniwas Karve as well as in Ashok Meshram (Supra),

the mistake was on the part of the Office, rather than on the part of

the employee. However, in the present case, it is a clear case of

indolence on the part of the employee for almost 18 years, which is

WP-10661-17.doc

inexcusable as far as the Petitioner is concerned. The date of birth of

"10th October 1959" was recorded at the time of entry of the

Petitioner in Government service, as per the documents submitted

by the Petitioner, and no blame of any nature whatsoever can be laid

at the door-step of the Respondents or any of their employees. Once

it is found that the concerned employee, like the present Petitioner,

allowed the things to dither till the last moment and then moved for a

change of date of birth just before his retirement, then, in such case,

such move should not be allowed to succeed, unless the blame can

be put at the door-step of the employer, which is not so in the

present case.

9. The Tribunal has considered all these facts and, thereafter,

dismissed the Original Application preferred by the Petitioner.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case and the

decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court, as discussed above,

we are of the opinion that no case is made out for interference.

Hence, the Writ Petition is rejected.

10. Rule is discharged.

[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]

WP-10661-17.doc