Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed a writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 21 April 2023 of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in Original Application No. 280/2023. The Tribunal had directed the State to correct the date of birth of the respondent, Sudhir Bhagwat Kalekar, an Assistant Commissioner of Police, from 23 May 1965 to 23 November 1965 in his service records and to grant consequential benefits. The respondent was appointed as a Police Sub-Inspector on 17 August 1992 through the Maharashtra Public Service Commission. At the time of appointment, he submitted a School Leaving Certificate showing his date of birth as 23 May 1965, which was also reflected in his Matriculation certificate. Accordingly, his date of birth was recorded as 23 May 1965 in service records. On 22 July 1994, he applied for correction to 23 November 1965 based on a Birth Certificate from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. No action was taken on that application. He made subsequent applications in 2004, 2005, 2011, 2013, and 2014, but no correction was made. He was promoted over the years and was due to retire on 31 May 2023. On 22 July 2022, he made another representation for correction, which was rejected on 1 March 2023. He then filed OA No. 280/2023 before the Tribunal in March 2023, which was allowed. The State challenged this order. The High Court considered the provisions of Rule 38 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, which governs correction of date of birth. The court noted that the respondent had served for over 30 years and sought correction just before retirement. The court held that the application was made at the fag end of service and the respondent failed to explain the inordinate delay. The alleged error was not an obvious mistake and was attributable to the respondent himself, as he had submitted the School Leaving Certificate at the time of appointment. The birth certificate relied upon was obtained after appointment and was not conclusive. The court also noted that the respondent had been promoted based on the recorded date of birth. The High Court quashed the Tribunal's order and dismissed the respondent's application for correction of date of birth.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Correction of Date of Birth - Rule 38 of Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 - Delay and Laches - The respondent sought correction of his date of birth from 23 May 1965 to 23 November 1965 after 30 years of service, just before retirement. The Tribunal allowed the application. The High Court held that the application was made at the fag end of service and the respondent failed to explain the inordinate delay. The alleged error was not an obvious mistake and was attributable to the respondent himself. The Tribunal's order was quashed. (Paras 1-11) B) Service Law - Onus of Proof - Rule 38(2a)(f) of Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 - The burden is on the employee to prove that the date of birth entry was erroneous and that the mistake was not attributable to him. The respondent relied on a birth certificate obtained after appointment, which was not conclusive. The High Court held that the respondent did not discharge the onus. (Paras 5-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal erred in allowing correction of date of birth of a police officer at the fag end of his service, contrary to Rule 38 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Tribunal's order dated 21 April 2023, and dismissed the respondent's Original Application No. 280/2023.
Law Points
- Correction of date of birth in service records
- Rule 38 of Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules
- 1981
- Delay and laches
- Fag end of service
- Onus of proof
