Dismissed

Taterao Mahadu Bagul v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC13 Apr 2016WP/4103/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a groundless tribunal order rejecting a request to correct the petitioner's date of birth in his service record. The High Court examined the statutory limitation and service history before upholding the Tribunal's decision.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition stands rejected on account of failure to file correction application within the statutory period of five years.

Taterao Mahadu Bagul Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

4103.2016WP.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4103 OF 2016

¶5

Taterao s/o. Mahadu Bagul,
Age : 54 Yrs., Occu : Service
[as Addl. Collector, Nandurbar],
R/o : Tokar Talav Road,
Nandurbar, Dist. Nandurbar PETITIONER

¶6

[Orig.Applicant]

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1] The State of Maharashtra, Through its Addl. Chief Secretary [Revenue], Revenue & Forest Department, M.S., Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.

¶9

2] The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik

¶10

[Notices of Resps.No.1 & 2 to be
served on the Ld. Government
Pleader, High Court Bench at
Aurangabad] RESPONDENTS

¶11

[Orig.Resps.No.1 & 2]

¶12

...

¶13

Mr. Avinash Deshmukh, Advocate for the
petitioner.

¶14

Mr. S.B.Yawalkar, AGP for Respondent - State

¶15

...

¶16

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &

¶17

 SANGITRAO S.PATIL,JJ.

¶18

Date: 13.04.2016.

¶19

4103.2016WP.odt

¶20

¶21

ORDER: [Per S.S.Shinde, J.]:

¶22

This Petition takes exception to the
impugned order dated 5th February, 2016,
passed by the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad in
Original Application No.02/2015 and the
impugned communication dated 26th February,
2015 issued by respondent no. 1.

¶23

2]The learned counsel appearing for

¶24

the petitioner submits that respondent no.1
rejected petitioner’s request for change in
the date of birth in his service record on

¶25

the basis of amendment to the Maharashtra

¶26

Civil Services [General Conditions of
Services] Amendment Rules, 2008 [hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Rules’]. It is submitted

¶27

that in the light of Instruction No.1 under

¶28

Rule 38 (2) as existing prior to the
Amendment in the Rules, the petitioner’s
request should necessarily have been

¶29

4103.2016WP.odt

¶30

¶31

considered on its own merits by respondent
no.1 and then only the decision should have
been taken by respondent no.1.

¶32

3]It is submitted that the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal has rejected Original
Application on altogether different reasons,

¶33

than those were assigned by respondent no.1
while rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

¶34

The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner further submits that respondent
no.1 as also the Maharashtra Administrative

¶35

Tribunal ought to have taken into
consideration the family background of the
petitioner that at the time of petitioner’s

¶36

entry in the School in the year 1968, his

¶37

date of birth was wrongly recorded as
07.01.1960 by the School Authorities, merely

¶38

on the basis of his physical appearance

¶39

inasmuch as neither his parents were in a

¶40

position to give his exact date of birth, nor
was there any system of recording of dates of

¶41

4103.2016WP.odt

¶42

¶43

births and deaths at that time in the
village. As such, the petitioner’s date of
birth at the time of his entry in the school
in 1968 was recorded simply on the basis of
guess work and there was absolutely no basis
for it. It is submitted that however, when
the said date of birth, i.e. 07.01.1960 of
the petitioner is considered vis-a-vis the
dates of births of his real brothers and
sisters, then it becomes explicit that it was
out and out a wrong recording of the date of
birth of the petitioner. The learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner invited our
attention to Annexure-A chart giving details
about the dates of births of the petitioner’s
brothers and sisters as available in the said
chart.

¶44

4]The learned counsel appearing for

¶45

the petitioner submits that the petitioner
could not file application within 5 years for

¶46

correction in the date of birth in his

¶47

4103.2016WP.odt

¶48

¶49

service record, since considerable time was
consumed to collect the necessary information
and possible documents, and thereafter, on
18th July, 2015, the petitioner had filed
application with respondent no.1 for
correction in the date of birth in his
service record. Therefore, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner relying
upon the grounds taken in the Petition,
annexures thereto, submits that, the Petition
deserves to be allowed.

¶50

5]On the other hand, the learned AGP
appearing for the respondent – State relying
upon the reasons recorded by the MAT, submits
that, the Petition may be rejected.

¶51

6]We have given careful consideration
to the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and the learned
AGP appearing for the respondent – State.
With their able assistance, we have perused

¶52

4103.2016WP.odt

¶53

¶54

the grounds taken in the Petition, annexures
thereto and the reasons recorded by the MAT.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner made
entry in the Government employment by his
appointment on the post of Police Sub
Inspector on 15th June, 1988. After rendering
services for 5 years on the said post, the
petitioner was appointed in Class-I service
of the State Government in its Co-operative

¶55

Department as directly recruited Deputy
Registrar of Co-operative Societies on and
with effect from 19th July, 1995. Consequent

¶56

upon his due selection and recommendations by

¶57

the MPSC. Thereafter, on 13th July, 2011, he
was promoted as Additional Collector and
since then he is working on the said post.
Therefore, keeping in view the posts on which

¶58

the petitioner has rendered services, it is

¶59

not possible to accept the contention of the

¶60

petitioner that it took more than 17 years
for him to collect the information and the

¶61

4103.2016WP.odt

¶62

¶63

documents so as to apply for correction in
the date of birth. The petitioner’s entry in
the service was on 15th June, 1988. The MAT
has elaborately discussed about the service
record of the petitioner and has recorded
sufficient reasons from para 13 to 19 of the
impugned Judgment. Admittedly, the petitioner
did not file application for correction in
date of birth within 5 years from the date of
joining of Government service. It is not in
dispute that the provisions of Rule 38 of the
MCS [General Conditions of Services] Rules,
1981, are applicable to the petitioner, and

¶64

therefore, he should have requested to
correct the date of birth within 5 years from
the date of joining of Government Service.

¶65

7]Therefore, in our considered view,

¶66

the reasons assigned by the MAT and the view
taken is in consonance with the material
placed on record. There is no perversity in
the findings recorded by the MAT. There is

¶67

4103.2016WP.odt

¶68

¶69

no reason for this Court to interfere in the
well reasoned impugned judgment and order of

¶70

the MAT. In the result, the Writ Petition

¶71

stands rejected.

¶72

 Sd/-Sd/-
 [SANGITRAO S.PATIL] [S.S.SHINDE]
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶73

DDC

Taterao Mahadu Bagul v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taterao Mahadu Bagul v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Kiran Milind Magar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Harsha Jitendra Patil Vs Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji High School Sanstha and Others

Vyankat Ramdas Jadhav and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Arun Narayan Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs Ashok Totaram Tayade

Ishwar Madhukar Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others