Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mayaram Sahajram Sadhwani, was appointed as Octroi Inspector with the Municipal Council, Karanja (Lad), District Washim. His date of birth was recorded in the service book as 14/07/1948, based on which he was to retire on 31/07/2006. However, in 2005, the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council issued communications asking the petitioner to submit proof of his date of birth, as doubts arose about its genuineness. Upon investigation, it was found that except for one document from K.N. College, all other school and institutional records showed his date of birth as 14/07/1946. Consequently, the Chief Officer issued a letter dated 27/06/2005 stating that the petitioner stood retired retrospectively from 31/07/2004 and directed recovery of excess payments made beyond that date. The petitioner filed a revision under Section 318 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965 before the Divisional Commissioner, who allowed the revision on 07/12/2011, setting aside the Chief Officer's order and directing that the petitioner be deemed to have retired on 31/07/2006 with benefits and 50% back-wages. The Municipal Council then filed a revision before the Collector, who set aside the Commissioner's order and restored the Chief Officer's order. The petitioner further challenged the Collector's order before the Divisional Commissioner, who dismissed the revision, upholding the Collector's order. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition. The court considered the principal contention that the date of birth could not be changed to the petitioner's detriment at the fag end of service and that the rule applying to employees to seek change within five years equally applied to the employer. The court held that the employer is not bound by such limitation and can correct a wrong entry at any time if there is sufficient evidence. The court found that the petitioner failed to produce cogent proof of his claimed date of birth, and the preponderance of evidence supported the date of birth as 14/07/1946. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the concurrent orders of the Collector and Divisional Commissioner, and directed the Municipal Council to recover excess payments made to the petitioner.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Date of Birth Correction - Fag End of Service - Employer's Right - Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965, Section 318 - The petitioner challenged concurrent orders of the Collector and Divisional Commissioner which set aside the Chief Officer's order treating his date of birth as 14/07/1948 and held his correct date of birth as 14/07/1946, resulting in his retirement from 31/07/2004. The court held that the employer is not bound by the five-year limitation period applicable to employees for seeking correction of date of birth, and that the employer can correct a wrong entry at any time, even at the fag end of service, provided there is sufficient evidence. The court found that the petitioner failed to produce cogent proof of his claimed date of birth, and the preponderance of evidence supported the date of birth as 14/07/1946. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the employer can change the date of birth of an employee to his detriment at the fag end of his service career, and whether the rule requiring an employee to seek change within five years of joining equally applies to the employer.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The concurrent orders of the Collector and Divisional Commissioner are upheld. The Municipal Council is directed to recover excess payments made to the petitioner.
Law Points
- Date of birth correction
- Fag end of service
- Employer's right to correct
- Limitation period for correction
- Service book entry
- Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act
- 1965
- Section 318
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (09) 139
Writ Petition No. 1015 of 2018
Petitioner in person; Mr. P. P. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.2
Mayaram s/o. Sahajram Sadhwani
The Collector, Washim; Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Karanja(Lad); Municipal Council Karanja; Divisional Commissioner & Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Amravati
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging concurrent orders of Collector and Divisional Commissioner which set aside the Chief Officer's order treating petitioner's date of birth as 14/07/1948 and held correct date as 14/07/1946, resulting in retirement from 31/07/2004.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the orders of the Collector and Divisional Commissioner and to restore the order of the Chief Officer treating his date of birth as 14/07/1948.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's date of birth was changed by the employer at the fag end of his service, leading to his retrospective retirement and recovery of excess payments.
Previous Decisions
The Chief Officer initially treated date of birth as 14/07/1948 but later changed it to 14/07/1946. The Divisional Commissioner allowed the petitioner's revision and set aside the Chief Officer's order. The Collector set aside the Commissioner's order and restored the Chief Officer's order. The Divisional Commissioner dismissed the petitioner's revision against the Collector's order.
Issues
Whether the employer can change the date of birth of an employee to his detriment at the fag end of service.
Whether the rule requiring an employee to seek change in date of birth within five years of joining service equally applies to the employer.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that his date of birth could not be changed to his detriment at the fag end of service and that the rule applying to employees to seek change within five years equally applied to the employer.
Respondents argued that the employer is not bound by such limitation and can correct a wrong entry at any time if there is sufficient evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The employer is not bound by the five-year limitation period applicable to employees for seeking correction of date of birth. The employer can correct a wrong entry at any time, even at the fag end of service, provided there is sufficient evidence. The preponderance of evidence supported the date of birth as 14/07/1946.
Judgment Excerpts
The principal contention raised by the petitioner is that his date of birth could not have been changed to his detriment at the fag end of his service career and that the rule applying to the employee to seek change in date of birth within five years of joining service, equally applied to the employer.
The court held that the employer is not bound by the five-year limitation period applicable to employees for seeking correction of date of birth, and that the employer can correct a wrong entry at any time, even at the fag end of service, provided there is sufficient evidence.
Procedural History
The petitioner was appointed as Octroi Inspector with the Municipal Council. His date of birth was recorded as 14/07/1948. In 2005, the Chief Officer issued communications asking for proof of date of birth. On 27/06/2005, the Chief Officer issued a letter stating that the petitioner stood retired retrospectively from 31/07/2004 and directed recovery. The petitioner filed a revision under Section 318 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act before the Divisional Commissioner, who allowed the revision on 07/12/2011, setting aside the Chief Officer's order. The Municipal Council then filed a revision before the Collector, who set aside the Commissioner's order and restored the Chief Officer's order. The petitioner challenged the Collector's order before the Divisional Commissioner, who dismissed the revision. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965: 318
