Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Yashwant G. Tambe, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging his premature retirement from the service of the Government of India Mint, Mumbai, with effect from 31st March 2007. He claimed that his actual date of birth was 1st June 1950, not 18th March 1947 as recorded in the service records. The petitioner had joined service on 29th March 1971 as a labourer and had produced a School Leaving Certificate dated 22nd December 1970 from Jeevan Shikshan Shala, Nate, showing his date of birth as 1st June 1950. However, the service record reflected his date of birth as 18th March 1947, which he had confirmed at the time of joining. In September 2006, he was issued a retirement memo retiring him on 31st March 2007 based on the recorded date of birth. The petitioner requested withdrawal of the memo and produced a fresh School Leaving Certificate, which the authorities confirmed as genuine but advised him to approach the court. He then filed Original Application No.49 of 2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which directed the respondents to produce the original service record. The respondents claimed the original record was missing but produced an attested form showing the date of birth as 18th March 1947. The Tribunal dismissed the application, leading to the present writ petition. The High Court held that the petitioner had not made any application for correction of his date of birth within a reasonable time and had waited until the issuance of the retirement memo. The court noted that the service record consistently showed the date of birth as 18th March 1947 and the petitioner had confirmed it. There was no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the retirement.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Date of Birth Correction - Limitation - Petitioner sought correction of date of birth from 18th March 1947 to 1st June 1950 after retirement memo was issued - Court held that application for correction must be made within reasonable time and not at the fag end of service - Petitioner failed to explain delay of 35 years - No interference under Article 226 (Paras 1-6). B) Service Law - Premature Retirement - Date of Birth Discrepancy - Petitioner claimed premature retirement based on wrong date of birth - Court found that service record consistently showed 18th March 1947 and petitioner had confirmed it - No evidence of fraud or misrepresentation - Retirement held valid (Paras 2-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to correction of his date of birth in service records and to challenge his premature retirement based on the alleged correct date of birth.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226
- date of birth correction in service records
- limitation for correction
- evidentiary value of service record
- delay and laches
