Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Satishkumar Sukhlal Valmiki Chaudhary, was appointed as a Peon on 31st May 2005 with the State of Maharashtra. At the time of appointment, he declared his date of birth as 19th January 1964, which was recorded in the service book. On 9th November 2011, after six years of service, he applied for rectification of his date of birth to 25th February 1968, claiming a mistake. The respondents rejected the application on 14th January 2015. The petitioner then filed Original Application No.602 of 2023 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed on 24th January 2024. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court noted that the application for correction was made after a considerable delay and the petitioner did not produce any contemporaneous documentary evidence to support his claim. The court held that the burden of proof lies on the employee to establish the correct date of birth, and the petitioner failed to discharge that burden. The court also observed that the school leaving certificate relied upon by the petitioner was issued after his appointment and could not be given weight. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the order of the Tribunal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Date of Birth Correction - Delay and Laches - Rule 38 of Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 - The petitioner sought correction of his date of birth from 19th January 1964 to 25th February 1968 after six years of service. The court held that the application was belated and the petitioner failed to produce any contemporaneous documentary evidence to support the claim. The Tribunal's rejection was upheld. (Paras 2-6)
B) Service Law - Date of Birth Correction - Burden of Proof - The burden lies on the employee to prove the correct date of birth by producing contemporaneous documents. The petitioner's reliance on a school leaving certificate issued after appointment was not considered sufficient. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to rectification of his date of birth in the service book after a delay of six years from the date of appointment and without producing contemporaneous documentary evidence.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 24th January 2024 rejecting the petitioner's application for rectification of date of birth.
Law Points
- Date of birth correction in service records
- Delay and laches
- Burden of proof on employee
- Contemporaneous documentary evidence
- Rule 38 of Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules
- 1981
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (01) 226
WRIT PETITION NO.1322 OF 2024
A.S. Chandurkar, Jitendra Jain
Mr.H.S. Shinde for the petitioner, Mr.N.C. Walimbe, Addl. G.P. a/w Mr.A.R. Metkari, AGP for respondent-State
Shri. Satishkumar Sukhlal Valmiki Chaudhary
The State of Maharashtra, The Collector, Mumbai City
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 challenging the order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal rejecting the petitioner's application for rectification of date of birth in service book.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the Tribunal's order and direction to respondents to rectify his date of birth from 19th January 1964 to 25th February 1968 in the service book.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's application for correction of date of birth was rejected by the respondents and subsequently by the Tribunal.
Previous Decisions
The respondents rejected the petitioner's application on 14th January 2015. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissed Original Application No.602 of 2023 on 24th January 2024.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to rectification of his date of birth in the service book after a delay of six years from the date of appointment.
Whether the petitioner produced sufficient contemporaneous documentary evidence to prove his correct date of birth.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the date of birth recorded in the service book was a mistake and his correct date of birth is 25th February 1968 as per school leaving certificate.
Respondent-State contended that the application was belated and the petitioner failed to produce any contemporaneous documentary evidence to support the claim.
Ratio Decidendi
An application for correction of date of birth in service records must be made within a reasonable time and the employee bears the burden to prove the correct date of birth by producing contemporaneous documentary evidence. Delay and lack of evidence justify rejection of such application.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge an order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench (‘Tribunal’) dated 24th January 2024 whereby Original Application No.602 of 2023 seeking rectification of his date of birth in the service book has been rejected.
On 31st May 2005, the petitioner was appointed as a Peon with the respondents. At the time of his appointment, the petitioner mentioned his date of birth as 19th January 1964 and the same was recorded in the service book of the petitioner by the respondents.
On 9th November 2011, the petitioner made an application to the respondents requesting for rectification of his date of birth in the service book since the date mentioned in the service book 19th January 1964 was by mistake a wrong date and the correct date was 25th February 1968.
On 14th January 2015, the respondents rejected the application of the petitioner for change in the date of birth on the ground that the application was made after a considerable delay and the petitioner failed to produce any contemporaneous documentary evidence.
Procedural History
The petitioner was appointed on 31st May 2005. On 9th November 2011, he applied for date of birth correction. The respondents rejected the application on 14th January 2015. The petitioner then filed Original Application No.602 of 2023 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed on 24th January 2024. The petitioner filed the present writ petition on 30th January 2024.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981: Rule 38
