Allowed

Shriniwas Prabhakar Karve v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC22 Apr 2016WP/2345/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought correction of the petitioner's date of birth in his service book and pension computation. The Court found the original entry was a clerical error by the department and the representation filed within limitation. The Court directed correction, pension computation, and payment of salary arrears and costs.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's date of birth corrected to 16.1.1958; pension computed as of 16.1.2016; arrears of salary directed to be paid; costs of Rs.25,000 awarded.

Shriniwas Prabhakar Karve Vs State of Maharashtra and… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

WP No.2345/2015

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2345/2015

¶5

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

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Chief Secretary, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶8

2. Principle Secretary, Tribal Development Department Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.

¶9

3. Principle Secretary, The Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

¶10

4. Principle Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.

¶11

5. Accountant General, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai. .. Respondents

¶12

WITH

¶13

CONTEMP PETITION NO.716 OF 2015

¶14

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

¶15

VERSUS

¶16

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

¶17

2 WP No.2345/2015

¶18

Mumbai -32.

¶19

2. Shri Rajgopal Devra, Age: 52 years, Occu. Service, Secretary, Tribal Dev. Dept. Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.

¶20

3. Shri Sambhaji Madhukar Sarkunde, Age:59 years, Occu. Service, Commissioner, Tribal Research and Training Institute, 28, Queen's Garden, Pune -1.

¶21

.. Respondents

¶22

...

¶23

Mr.Suresh M. Kulkarni, Advocate for Petitioner;
Mr.S.B.Yawalkar, AGP for Respondents / State.

¶24

CORAM : R.M.BORDE & P.R.BORA,JJ.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

1)Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and

¶28

heard finally with consent of the learned Counsel
for the parties.

¶29

2)The present petition illustrates the
harassment suffered by a gazetted officer because
of the indifferent and callous attitude and

¶30

approach of the Government officials, in getting
corrected his date of birth, which was wrongly

¶31

3 WP No.2345/2015

¶32

recorded in his service book, without any fault
on his part,

¶33

3)The petitioner was selected through MPSC

¶34

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.

¶35

The said practice suffered change in the year
1989 and the Service books were then transferred

¶36

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

¶37

has been wrongly recorded in the service book as
1st March, 1957 instead of 16th January, 1958.

¶38

4)After being aware of the mistake so

¶39

occurred, the petitioner promptly filed a

¶40

representation on 4th February, 1993 with the
department for recording his correct date of

¶41

4 WP No.2345/2015

¶42

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.

¶43

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.

¶44

6)However, after waiting for a long period
when nothing was communicated to him, the
petitioner moved another application on 22nd
September,2009,requestingthe
respondents/authorities to record his correct

¶45

5 WP No.2345/2015

¶46

date of birth in the service record. In the said
representation the petitioner referred to his

¶47

earlier representation dated 4th February, 1993

¶48

and also annexed the copy of the said
representationalongwithhisfresh

¶49

representation. The petitioner also annexed with
his representation ample documentary evidence

¶50

evincing that his correct date of birth is 16th

¶51

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.

¶52

The petitioner also provided a probable reason

¶53

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.

¶54

6 WP No.2345/2015

¶55

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.

¶56

information by the petitioner, his representation
was rejected by the respondents authorities vide
order dated 20.10.2011 on the ground that he did

¶57

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)

¶58

7 WP No.2345/2015

¶59

challenging the said order dated 20.10.2011.

¶60

8)As has been mentioned in the petition

¶61

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.

¶62

9)After having considered the material

¶63

placed on record, the learned Tribunal was

¶64

pleased to remand the matter to the Government,
vide order passed on 20th October, 2011,

¶65

directing the respondents authorities to take
appropriate decision within the stipulated
period.

¶66

10)The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.

¶67

9492/2011 before this Court taking exception to

¶68

the order of remand passed by the Tribunal.
During pendency of the aforesaid writ petition,

¶69

8 WP No.2345/2015

¶70

the department again rejected the petitioner's

¶71

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

¶72

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.

¶73

11)The Government, however, again refused

¶74

the request of the petitioner by communication
dated 10th December, 2013 on the same ground that

¶75

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

¶76

filed Original Application No.134/2014. The
learned Tribunal partly allowed the said Original

¶77

9 WP No.2345/2015

¶78

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.

¶79

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

¶80

writ of mandamus against the respondents to
record his correct date of birth in the service
record as 16th January, 1958.

¶81

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

¶82

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.

¶83

14)During pendency of the present petition,
as directed by the Tribunal, the respondents
reconsidered the representation of the petitioner

¶84

10 WP No.2345/2015

¶85

and again rejected the request of the petitioner
on 16th December, 2015, stating the same ground

¶86

that the petitioner did not file the

¶87

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.

¶88

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

¶89

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.

¶90

11 WP No.2345/2015

¶91

16)The petitioner filed the affidavit in

¶92

rejoinder to the affidavit in reply filed on
behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Thereafter,

¶93

the additional affidavit in reply came to be
filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
through Smt. Jija Sane, the Project Officer. In
the said affidavit in reply, the respondents have

¶94

denied that the petitioner and John Gaikwad
joined the services on one and the same day. It
is clarified that the petitioner joined on 14th
March, 1984; whereas Shri John Gaikwad joined on
19th March, 1984.

¶95

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.

¶96

18)The petitioner has placed on record
overwhelming evidence in support of his

¶97

12 WP No.2345/2015

¶98

contention that his date of birth recorded as 1st
March, 1957 in the service record is incorrect

¶99

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

¶100

authorities in the name of the petitioner in the
year 1993, the petitioner's date of birth is

¶101

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

¶102

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

¶103

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

¶104

shown at Serial No.6 therein. The seniority

¶105

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

¶106

13 WP No.2345/2015

¶107

also show the date of birth of the petitioner as
16th January, 1958.

¶108

.It is significant to note that the

¶109

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.

¶110

19)If the aforesaid documentary evidence is
considered, there remains no doubt that the true

¶111

and correct date of birth of the petitioner is
16th January, 1958. The petitioner has admittedly

¶112

entered in Government Service in the year 1984.
The aforesaid documents are of the period much

¶113

14 WP No.2345/2015

¶114

prior to that. As such, no doubt can be raised
as regards the genuineness of the said documents.

¶115

There seems no reason to disbelieve these
documents. Further, as has come on record and

¶116

as we have mentioned earlier, in the PAN Card;
Driving License; Insurance Policies, everywhere,
the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned

¶117

as 16th January, 1958. We reiterate that the

¶118

Driving License has been issued in the name of

¶119

the petitioner in the year 1993; whereas the
insurance policy was purchased by him in the year

¶120

1988. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, in the
seniority lists published in the year 1984; 1988;

¶121

1991 and 1994, the date of birth of the

¶122

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.

¶123

20)Now, the next question arises whether
the petitioner had submitted the applicant and/or

¶124

15 WP No.2345/2015

¶125

representation to correct his date of birth in

¶126

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.

¶127

21)Admittedly, the petitioner has entered

¶128

into the government service in the year 1984. As

¶129

such, the application-representation submitted by
the petitioner on 21.2.2009, apparently appears

¶130

to have been filed beyond the period of
limitation. However, it cannot be ignored that
since beginning the petitioner has been stating

¶131

that he had filed such application/representation
firstly on 4.2.1993 and the same has not been
decided by the respondents.

¶132

22)It has to be stated that in the reply

¶133

affidavit filed by the respondents/authorities
before the Tribunal in OA No.734/2010, the
department has accepted that the petitioner had

¶134

16 WP No.2345/2015

¶135

filed such representation on 4.2.1993. Moreover,

¶136

the petitioner has plaed on record the copy of

¶137

the said representation dated 4.2.1993, which

¶138

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

¶139

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

¶140

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

¶141

aforesaid practice was discontinued and the
service books were transferred to the parent

¶142

17 WP No.2345/2015

¶143

departments from 1991 onwards. The aforesaid

¶144

facts, which have been stated by the petitioner

¶145

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.

¶146

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

¶147

of birth recorded as 1.3.1957 was recorded as per

¶148

the service record obtained from the office of
Accountant General. It is thus quite clear that

¶149

18 WP No.2345/2015

¶150

the representation by the petitioner to record

¶151

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

¶152

1991, since prior to that, neither the

¶153

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

¶154

office of the Accountant General. The

¶155

application submitted by the petitioner on
04.02.1993 was thus well within the prescribed
period of the limitation.

¶156

24)As noted above, the respondents have

¶157

accepted that, such application was submitted by

¶158

the petitioner on 4.2.1993. The burden,

¶159

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

¶160

19 WP No.2345/2015

¶161

said representation and kept the said

¶162

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

¶163

have provided any explanation as to why the
representation filed by the petitioner way back
in the year 1993 remained undecided.

¶164

25)In the above circumstances, the

¶165

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

¶166

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

¶167

20 WP No.2345/2015

¶168

years. It demonstrates utter non application of
mind and lack of sensitiveness on the part of the
concerned Government officials.

¶169

26)We express our serious concern over the

¶170

casual and callous approach of the respondents
authorities who have rejected the application of
the petitioner after passing of the order by this

¶171

Courton13.07.2012inwritpetition
No.9492/2011. Vide the said order, this Court

¶172

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

¶173

indicated the respondents to find out whether it

¶174

was an error on the part of the department. It
seems that, the officer, who has subsequently
considered the representation of the petitioner

¶175

and rejected the same, did not bother to adhere

¶176

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

¶177

21 WP No.2345/2015

¶178

order thereby again rejecting the request of the
petitioner.

¶179

27)In order dated 16th December, 2015,

¶180

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, -

¶181

“2. In rule 38 of the Maharashtra
Civil Services (General Conditions
ofServices)Rules,1981,
(hereinafter referred to as “the
principal Rules”), in sub-rule(2),
under the heading Instruction,-

¶182

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

¶183

“(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
16thAugust1981,shallbe
entertained after a period of five
years commencing from the date of

¶184

22 WP No.2345/2015

¶185

his entry in Government Service.”

¶186

28)We have elaborately discussed herein

¶187

above as to how the representation/application
submitted by the petitioner was within period of

¶188

five years of his entering into the service. We

¶189

need not to repeat the entire said discussion.
Vide the Notification dated 24th December, 2008,

¶190

the aforesaid amendment was made in Rule 38 of
theMaharashtraCivilServices(General
Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. Said Rule 38

¶191

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

¶192

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).

¶193

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

¶194

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

¶195

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

¶196

23 WP No.2345/2015

¶197

(a) The date of birth should be verified with reference to documentary evidence and certificate recorded to that effect stating the nature of the document relied on;

¶198

(b) In the case of a Government servant the year of whose birth is known but not the date, the 1^st July should be treated as the date of birth;

¶199

(c) When both the year and the month of birth are known but not the exact date, the 16^th of the month should be treated as the date of birth;

¶200

(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;

¶201

(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;

¶202

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

¶203

24 WP No.2345/2015

¶204

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.;”

¶205

29)From the aforesaid Rule, it is quite

¶206

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

¶207

clause (f) of Rule 38(2), when once an entry of
age or date of birth has been made in the service

¶208

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.

¶209

30)The order passed by this Court on

¶210

13.7.2012 in Writ Petition No. 9492/2011 was in

¶211

view of the aforesaid provision. In the said

¶212

25 WP No.2345/2015

¶213

order,thisCourthaddirectedthe

¶214

respondents/authorities to find out whether it

¶215

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,
aswehavenotedearlier,the

¶216

respondents/authorities have ignored the said
directions and have again rejected the request of

¶217

the petitioner on the same ground. The

¶218

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

¶219

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

¶220

the procedure to be followed. Clause 2(a) of
Rule 38 specifically provides that the date of

¶221

26 WP No.2345/2015

¶222

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.

¶223

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
noneofthesaidproceedings,the
respondents/authoritieshaveprovidedany
explanation as to relying on which document, the
date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as

¶224

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.

¶225

32)We have mentioned earlier that the

¶226

School Leaving certificate and SSC certificate
are the documents, which are primarily relied

¶227

27 WP No.2345/2015

¶228

upon for verifying the date of birth. In both

¶229

these documents, the date of birth of the

¶230

petitioner is recorded as 16th January, 1958. The

¶231

respondents have not brought on record any

¶232

evidence to show that the date of birth, as
recorded in the service book, was on the basis of

¶233

any documentary evidence or the certificate

¶234

provided by the petitioner. The only inference,

¶235

therefore, emerges that incorrect entry as

¶236

regards to the date of birth in the service book
of the petitioner was not due to any mistake on

¶237

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.

¶238

33)The petitioner since beginning has been

¶239

saying that he and one John Gaikwad were selected

¶240

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

¶241

28 WP No.2345/2015

¶242

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

¶243

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,

¶244

“(1)No application for alteration

¶245

of the entry regarding date of birth
as recorded in the service book or

¶246

service roll of a Government
servant, who has entered into the

¶247

29 WP No.2345/2015

¶248

Government service on or after the

¶249

16thAugust1981,shallbe
entertained after a period of five
years commencing from the date of
his entry in Government Service.”

¶250

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, -

¶251

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.;”

¶252

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

¶253

excuse for not considering the request of the
petitioner in respect of correcting his date of
birth would not be available to the State

¶254

Government. Even otherwise, in peculiar facts

¶255

and circumstances of this case, there were lapses
on the part of the Stat Government in recording

¶256

30 WP No.2345/2015

¶257

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.

¶258

35)After having considered the entire

¶259

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

¶260

the petitioner has submitted the representation
for correction of the said date of birth within
the stipulated period of five years, his date of
birthwasnotcorrectedandhis
applications/representationswererepeatedly

¶261

rejected on erroneous and unsustainable grounds
and the petitioner was unnecessarily harassed.

¶262

36)It is brought to our notice by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that

¶263

31 WP No.2345/2015

¶264

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 16th
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.

¶265

37)After having considered the facts of the
present case, which we have noted down in detail

¶266

32 WP No.2345/2015

¶267

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.

¶268

38)In the result, the following order, -

¶269

ORDER

¶270

i)The respondents are directed to record
date of birth of the petitioner in the service

¶271

33 WP No.2345/2015

¶272

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;

¶273

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 ;

¶274

iii)The respondents do pay Rs.25,000/- to
the petitioner by way of costs of the present
petition.

¶275

34 WP No.2345/2015

¶276

38)Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid

¶277

terms. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand
disposed of. Contempt Petition stands disposed

¶278

of. Contempt Notice discharged.

¶279

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

¶280

bdv/ fldr 11.4.16

Shriniwas Prabhakar Karve v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriniwas Prabhakar Karve v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Laxmikant Bhagwat Kawtekwar and Other Vs the State of Maharashtra and Other

The Vidharbha Irrigation Development Corporation through Its Executive Engineer Bhaskar Pandharinat Vs Ramesh Mohan Ade and Others

Shriniwas Prabhakar Karve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shriniwas Prabhakar Karve Vs Swadhin Kshatriya and Others

Dr. Vandana W/O. Bibhishan Garje Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Krushna S/O. Dajiba Waikar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.