Bombay High Court
Shamrav Bhagwat Pandav vs Centeral Government Of India And ... on 29 June, 2021
Bench: K.K. Tated, R. I. Chagla
9-WP-2278-21.doc
jsn.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2278 OF 2021
Mr. Shamrav Bhagwat Pandav ...Petitioner
Versus
Central Government of India & Anr. ...Respondents
----------
Mr. Suryakant Pise for the Petitioner.
Mr. K.P. Anilkumar for the Respondent No. 2
----------
CORAM : K.K. TATED &
R.I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : 29 June 2021.
ORDER :
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. By this Writ Petition fled under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking directions
against Respondents to make the correction of birth date of the
Petitioner as 30th April, 1962 instead of 16th June, 1961 in
service records.
3. The learned Counsel Mr. Pise appearing for the
Petitioner submits that earlier the Petitioner made several
correspondence but the Respondents failed and neglected to
9-WP-2278-21.doc
take appropriate action. Hence he has fled present Petition on
21st June, 2021. During the course of argument, the learned
Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is retiring
tomorrow i.e. 30th June, 2021. Hence there is urgency.
4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel Mr.
Anilkumar appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2
vehemently opposed the Petitioner. He submits that the
Petitioner has approached this Court at the fag end of his
retirement. This is not permitted. In support of this, he relies
on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Kakasaheb Shidu
Mhaske V. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors .1.
Paragraph 5 of the said judgment reads thus:-
"5. It is a common case of the parties before us that there
is no rule or instructions framed by the Corporation
which controls the alteration or correction of date of
birth. Thus, the present case has to be governed by
the general principles. Undisputed facts which emerge
from the record show that the petitioner had declared
his date of birth as 1st June, 1949 at the time of his
entry into service. The petitioner was an educated
person and was fully aware of the consequences of an
undertaking given to his employer at the time of his
entry into service. The undertaking given by the
petitioner in fact debarred him from claiming any
alteration in the date of birth given in his service
1 2007(4) Mh.L.J. 837
9-WP-2278-21.doc
record. Usefully, at this stage reference can be made to
the relevant part of the undertaking given by the
petitioner under his signature.
"That the date of birth as stated in the
documentary evidence produced by me is correct.
The date of birth (i.e. the date, month and year) is
correctly recorded in my service Book/sheet as
per the documentary evidence. I shall, therefore,
not come forward with a request to change the
date of birth as recorded in the Service
Book/Sheet."
In addition to the above undertaking, the petitioner
had also given a school certifcate showing the date of
birth as 1st June, 1949 and entry to the school in the
year 1955. The story now put forward by the
petitioner that in 2006 his maternal uncle disclosed
him the fact that no female child was born and the
petitioner was born on 24th February, 1951 and not
on 1st June, 1949, is somewhat diffcult to believe. In
his long life, the petitioner must have visited his
village, his parents and relations. The version of the
petitioner suffers from the element of inbuilt
contradictions and is not beyond the limit of
suspicion. The steps taken by the petitioner in taking
out a publication in the gazette by producing self-
serving documents before the other authorities and
getting the correction made in the records would in no
way bind the Corporation. No doubt, under Section 15
of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, the
competent authority has the discretion to correct and
cancel the entries in the said registers. This is a power
which is vested in the authorities and they can
exercise their discretion in accordance with law. The
Corporation was not a party before the Registrar for
correction of the date of birth. In fact, there was no
occasion for the same. By these administrative
proceedings taken by the petitioner by producing self-
serving documents, the Corporation cannot be
compelled in law and fact to alter the date of birth of
the petitioner in the service record. According to the
petitioner, he had come to know from his maternal
uncle, who was stated to be 75 years old, in April,
9-WP-2278-21.doc
2006, but still he waited and created documents in his
own favour and then moved the Corporation only in
November, 2006."
5. He also relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in
the matter of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Shyam
Kishore Singh2. On the basis of these submissions and
authorities, the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits
that there is no question of entertaining the present Petition at
the fag end of his retirement.
6. We heard both sides at length. When we declined to
entertain the present Petition in view of the law laid down by
this Court and Apex Court as stated above, the learned Counsel
for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner may be permitted
to withdraw the present Petition. Same is permitted. Hence the
following order:-
(i) The Writ Petition is disposed of as withdrawn with no
order as costs.
[R.I. CHAGLA J.] [K.K. TATED, J.]
2 Civil Appeal No.1009 of 2020 dated 5th February, 2020
