Dismissed

Shankuntala Zumbar Kale v. the Chief Officer Municipal Council Osmanabad

Bombay HC18 Jan 2017WP/340/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a petitioner's application to correct her date of birth in her municipal service record. The court held that Rule 38 of the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules barred the application as it was filed after the five-year period from the date of appointment.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking quashing of the order rejecting the application for correction of date of birth was dismissed.

Shankuntala Zumbar Kale Vs the Chief Officer… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1 33-WP-340-17

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.340 OF 2017

¶4

Shakuntala w/o. Zumbar Kale,
Age : 47 years, Occ. Service,
r/o. Papnas Nagar,
Osmanabad..Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The Chief Officer,
Municipal Council,
Osmanabad..Respondent

¶7

Mr.S.B.Choudhari, Advocate for petitioner

¶8

CORAM : V.M. KANADE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : JANUARY 18, 2017

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

Heard the learned Counsel for the

¶11

petitioner.

¶12

2.The petitioner has filed this petition
seeking writ of mandamus or appropriate direction

¶13

for quashing the order passed by the respondent on

¶14

19.12.2016 rejecting the petitioner's application
for correction in her date of birth.

¶15

2 33-WP-340-17

¶16

3.Brief facts, which are necessary for

¶17

deciding this petition, are that the petitioner
was appointed as a Sweeper with Municipal Council,

¶18

Osmanabad on 31.10.2001. At the time her
appointment, her date of birth was shown as
13.02.1957. According to the petitioner, though
she had given correct date of birth as 25.01.1969,

¶19

her date of birth was wrongly recorded as
13.02.1957 in her service record. When she came to
know about this fact, she made an application for
change in her date of birth from 13.02.1957 to
25.01.1969. Her application was dismissed on the
grounds that the application was not filed within
five years from the date of appointment and the

¶20

procedure prescribed under Rule 38 of the
Maharashtra Civil Services Rule (“M.C.S.R.”, for
short) was not followed.

¶21

4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner

¶22

submits that the application filed by the
petitioner reveals that along with the said

¶23

3 33-WP-340-17

¶24

application, original certificate about death of

¶25

birth was annexed and that the said certificate

¶26

was issued by the Sarpanch on 04.01.1996. He
further submits that there was a clerical mistake

¶27

on the part of the person who recorded the date of
birth of the petitioner in the service record and
therefore, the date of birth is liable to be
corrected.

¶28

5.We have perused the petition and the
annexures thereto. In our view, it is not possible

¶29

to accept the submissions of the petitioner. Rule
38 of the M.C.S.R. reads as under :-

¶30

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

¶31

....

¶32

....

¶33

(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:

¶34

4 33-WP-340-17

¶35

Instruction.-

¶36

(1)Noapplicationfor
alterationoftheentry
regarding date of birth as
recorded in the service book or
service roll of Government
Servant, who has entered into
the Government service on or
after 16th August 1981, shall be
entertained after a period of
five years commencing from the
date of his entry in Government
service.

¶37

6.It is mentioned in the said Rule that an

¶38

application for correction in date of birth has to
be filed within five years from the date of
appointment.

¶39

7.In the present case, admittedly, the

¶40

petitioner filed the application for correction in
her date of birth after five years from the date
of her appointment and in our view, the respondent
has rightly rejected the application of the
petitioner on that ground.

¶41

8.Apart from that, the contention of the
petitioner is that there is a clerical mistake in

¶42

5 33-WP-340-17

¶43

recording the date of birth of the petitioner in

¶44

the service record. Though the petitioner produced

¶45

the original hand written application dated

¶46

18.12.2001 addressed to the respondent, which
mentions that the petitioner had produced the
birth certificate, neither there was reference to
the birth certificate nor it was mentioned as to
who had issued the birth certificate. Therefore,
it cannot be said that the birth certificate
issued by the Sarpanch on 04.01.1996 was the same
certificate which was annexed to the application.

¶47

9.Another thing which can be noted is that

¶48

the petitioner's father had filed an application
before the Magistrate stating therein that the
petitioner's date of birth was 25.01.1969 and
accordingly, the Magistrate has given direction on

¶49

07.11.2016 that the date of birth of the
petitioner may be recorded as 25.01.1969. In our

¶50

view, on the basis of the said order, the date of
birth of the petitioner cannot be changed since

¶51

6 33-WP-340-17

¶52

father of the petitioner made the said application
without there being any supporting evidence.

¶53

10.In view of above discussion, we are not
inclined to interfere with the order passed by the
respondent.

¶54

11.The Writ Petition stands dismissed.

¶55

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [V.M. KANADE, J.]

¶56

kbp

Shankuntala Zumbar Kale v. the Chief Officer Municipal Council Osmanabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankuntala Zumbar Kale v. the Chief Officer Municipal Council Osmanabad

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

M/S R G Sanap Construction Company through Its Proprietor Raosaheb Govindrao Sanap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rasul Babaji Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Padmaja Gulabrao More and Another Vs the Chief Election Officer Maharashtra Election Commission Mumbai and Others

Prataprao Gangadharrao Chavan and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sheela Kishanrao Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Devidas Ramchandra Tidke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others