Dismissed

Satara Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj (through Its Chairman) v. Arvind Rajaram Salunkhe

Bombay HC18 Jan 2013SA/261/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Second Appeal concerning an aided school principal's retirement date and pension, the High Court of Bombay at the admission stage disposed of the matter as there was no substantial question of law. The appellant argued non-compliance with Maharashtra Civil Services Rules regarding notification of the accepted date of birth, but the Court held the employee should not suffer for the institution

What did the court decide?

The Second Appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission; no orders as to costs.

Satara Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj (through… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

261-12-sa=.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

SECOND APPEAL NO. 261 OF 2012

¶4

Satara Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj .. Appellants

¶5

V/s.

¶6

Arvind Rajaram Salunkhe & Ors. .. Respondents

¶7

Mr. P.G. Jagdale for the appellants None for the respondents

¶8

CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 18^th JANUARY, 2013

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

Regular Civil Suit No.239 of 2004 was filed by respondent no.1 in the Court of learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara to seek a declaration that his date of birth is 30th June, 1931 and that he would retire on the basis of the said date of birth and he is entitled for other benefits. The said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 8th September, 2006 in favour of the respondent no.1 and his date of birth was accepted as 30th June, 1931 and his date of superannuation was fixed as 31st June, 1991. Respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 were

1 of 5

U.S.Jagtap

261-12-sa=.doc

required to comply with the decree passed by the learned trial Court as the appellants are running an aided school in which respondent no.1 was working as a Principal. The present appellants filed Civil Appeal No.25 of 2008. Other Appeal was filed by present respondent no.2 and 3. These two appeals filed against the respondent no.1 came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 5th October, 2011.

¶15

Learned advocate for the appellants appearing on behalf of the Satara Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj, Satara upon instructions made a statement that the Administrative Officer and the State of Maharashtra being present respondent nos. 2 and 3, have not filed any appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court thereby dismissing their Appeal No.25 of 2008. The aforesaid Educational Institution has filed this Second Appeal.

¶16

I have heard learned advocate Mr. Jagdale on behalf of the appellants. According to learned advocate Mr. Jagdale, the respondent no.1 had tendered a birth certificate wherein the

2 of 5

U.S.Jagtap

261-12-sa=.doc

date of birth was shown as 30th June, 1931. However, in the said birth certificate, the name of respondent no.1 was not mentioned. He submitted that the date of birth of respondent no.1 was treated as 15th July, 1930 on account of the said date being incorporated in the Service Book of respondent no.1 being the service book supplied by the earlier school in which he was working. The learned advocate Mr. Jagdale informed the Court that on the basis of the birth certificate wherein the name of respondent no.1 was shown as 30th June, 1931, a representation was made to the appellants and the resolution was passed by, the then Board of Directors accepting the date of birth of respondent no.1 as 30th June, 1931. However, they did not inform the appropriate Government Authorities about such a change of birth date. Learned advocate Mr. Jagdale relied upon Rule 38(2)(f) of the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules, 1981. According to him, the Courts below have erred in accepting the date of birth as 30th June, 1931 as the procedure prescribed in Rule 38(2)(f) mentioned above, was not complied with.

3 of 5

U.S.Jagtap

261-12-sa=.doc

It is pertinent to note that the present appellants did not inform the concerned authorities about they having accepted the date of birth as 30th June, 1931 and, therefore, the authorities treated the date of birth as 15th July, 1930. If the appellants would have informed the concerned authorities that they were fully satisfied that the date of birth was 30th June, 1931, surely, the respondent no.1 would not have been required to litigate to have his correct date of birth fixed.

¶25

In my view, if the appellants were satisfied that the correct date of birth is 30th June, 1931 then, they should have been prompt enough in informing the concerned authorities about the correct date of birth. In my view, if the management has failed to perform their duty, the employee who has rendered service for substantially long time should not suffer. Both the Courts have accepted the correct date of birth as 30th June, 1931.

¶26

It is also required to be noted that respondent nos.2 and 3, who

4 of 5

U.S.Jagtap

261-12-sa=.doc

are directly affected by the orders passed by the trial Court, though filed an appeal before the District Court, have not chosen to file Second Appeal before this Court. This will also go to show that Governmental Authorities have accepted the stand of both the Courts. In my view, the present Second Appeal filed by the Institution is required to be dismissed.

¶31

No substantial question of law is involved. The Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no orders

as to costs.

[R.Y.GANOO, J.]

5 of 5

U.S.Jagtap

Satara Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj (through Its Chairman) v. Arvind Rajaram Salunkhe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satara Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj (through Its Chairman) v. Arvind Rajaram Salunkhe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dashrath Jaywant Kutwal (Deceased Thr. L/H.) 1A Hanumant Dashrath Kutwal Vs Ramdas Anandrao Kutwal

Dnyanoba Chandar Kunjir and Anr. Vs Anantrao Jaiwantrao Kunjir Since Died Heirs and Ors.

Dnyanoba Chandar Kunjir and Anr. Vs Anantrao Jaiwantrao Kunjir (Decd.)by Lrs.

Chandrika Shankaran Nair and Ors. Vs Maharashtra Motors and Ors.

Machhindra Kashinath Mandale Vs Jalindar Kashinath Mandale

Sarjerao Jalindar Mandale Vs Lochanabia Jalindar Mandale