Dismissed

Antaram S/O Tanuji Pada v. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli and Another

Bombay HC9 Jan 2020WP/165/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought correction of his date of birth in service records after a delay of over 30 years. The court dismissed the petition, noting that requests for such correction at the fag-end of a service career are normally not entertained due to inordinate delay, distinguishing the cited precedents as factually different.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; Petitioner directed to pay costs of Rs. Two Thousand to the High Court Bar Library, Nagpur.

Antaram S/O Tanuji Pada Vs Chief Executive… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

1.WP165.2020.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.165/2020

¶5

Antaram Tanuji Pada Vs. Chief Executive Officer and another.

¶6

…........................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

Shri A. K. Neware, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶8

CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE & A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ. DATED : 09^th JANUARY, 2020.

¶9

. The petitioner seeks correction of his date of birth as entered in the service records. According to the petitioner, his correct date of birth is 25.01.1965, but it has been wrongly entered as 25.01.1962. The petitioner entered in service as a Primary Teacher on 30.06.1984. It is his case that on noticing the incorrect record of his date of birth, he moved an application on 25.07.1988 seeking correction of that mistake. It is only when he was informed that he would be retiring by end of January, 2020 that he has approached the Court with the grievance that despite the application for correction having been made in the year 1988, that correction has not been effected.

¶10

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who has placed reliance on the decision in the case of State of Kerala Vs. Yoosuf Kunju reported in (1999) IIILLJ 1548 Ker . It is his contention that having sought correction of the date of birth in the year 1988, he was under the impression that the correction was effected.

¶11

2 1.WP165.2020.odt

¶12

It is well settled that at the fag-end of the service career, request for correction in the date of birth should normally not be entertained. Though it is the case of the petitioner that he sought such correction in the year 1988, there is total inaction on his part for a period of more than 30 years from that date. The fact that the petitioner is serving as a primary school teacher cannot be ignored. The petitioner is due to retire from service in January, 2020. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is clearly distinguishable in view of the facts of that case. The delay in seeking correction of the date of birth was condoned by the Government in that case. In the light of a settled legal position referred to above, we do not find any case to interfere in this petition. The Writ Petition is thus dismissed.

¶13

After the order was dictated, the learned counsel for the petitioner again sought to rely upon the decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh reported in AIR 1993 S.C. 1367 . There is no reason why this decision was not cited when the arguments were advanced and completed. The petitioner shall therefore, pay costs of Rs. Two Thousand to the High Court Bar Library, Nagpur.

¶14

Perusal of the aforesaid decision indicates that rather than supporting the case of the petitioner it washes out his case. The date of birth as recorded in the year 1956 was sought to be corrected in the year 1991. The Central Administrative Tribunal granted the request of the employee but that order was set aside on the ground that there was

¶15

3 1.WP165.2020.odt

¶16

inordinate delay in making such request. As stated above, for the period of more than 30 years, the petitioner has not taken any steps whatsoever to have his date of birth corrected. Hence, we do not find any assistance being rendered by this judgment to the case of the petitioner.

¶17

JUDGE JUDGE

¶18

RGurnule

Antaram S/O Tanuji Pada v. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Antaram S/O Tanuji Pada v. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ahtesham Makbul Hussain Haideri Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Ministry of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai Thr. Secretary and Others

Smt. Laxmi Wd/O Madangopal Girdhar and Others Vs the Authorized Officer, Bank of India, Bhandara and Others

Smt. Laxmi Wd/O Madangopal Girdhar and Others Vs the Authorized Officer, Bank of India, Bhandara and Others

Dr. (Smt.) Prabha S. Nichkawade, Nagpur Vs the Chairman Um M.D. M/S W.C.L. Nagpur and 3 Otrs

Shah Nanji Nagsi Exports Pvt. Ltd. Nagpur through Director Shri Ashwin Shah Vs Union of India and Others

M/S J.V. Kulkarni and Friends Associates through Its Partner Shri. Nandkishor R. Rajput, Buldhana Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur