The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Tribunal's rejection of a claim for date of birth correction. The Tribunal relied on a Supreme Court precedent holding that such application cannot be made after five years of service, a view the Court upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
WP. 3481-13
VPH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION No. 3481 OF 2013
Suresh Bhagoji Tambe ... Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Sachin A. Patil i/b R. N. Kachave, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Sameer Patil, AGP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: V. M. KANADE & Smt. R. P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ.
DATE : JUNE 17, 2013.
P.C.
. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that advocate on record is busy in the Family Court, at Bandra. Perused the impugned order. The petitioner had made a representation for changing the date of birth on 24th May, 2011 when the petitioner was to retire on 31st May 2011. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the factual situation and has come to the conclusion that the the petitioner could not have made application for correction in date of birth after lapse of five years from the date of joining the service, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of – State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble & Ors. [(2010) 14 SCC 423] , and therefore, the Tribunal was not
2
WP. 3481-13
inclined to interfere with the order of the respondent, rejecting claim of the petitioner. In our view, there is no infirmity or illegality committed by the Tribunal in rejecting the application of the petitioner. Therefore, we are also not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/Sd/[Smt. R. P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.]
Vinayak Halemath
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Court should interfere with the Tribunal's order rejecting the petitioner's application for correction of date of birth and subsequent claim for pension.
Whether the expiry of five years from the date of joining service disentitles a petitioner from applying for correction of date of birth based on the Supreme Court judgment referred.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble & Ors.Referred¶15
_State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble & Ors. [(2010) 14 SCC 423] · Who else cites this
Suresh Bhagoji Tambe
State of Maharashtra
V. M. Kanade
R. P. Sondurbaldota
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
