Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 1087
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
V.M. Kanade and M.S. Sonak, JJ.
UNION OF INDIA – Petitioner
Vs.
VISHWAS JAYWANTRAO BHOSALE – Respondent
W.P. Nos. 5504 and 5390 of 2016
Decided On : 24-06-2016
For the Petitioners: Anil Singh, Neel Helekar, Rui Rodrigues, M.S. Bharadwaj, Ashutosh Gole, V.B. Thadani.
For the Respondents: A.V. Anturkar, Rahul Walia, V.B. Thadani, Anil Singh, Neel Helekar, Rui Rodrigues, M.S. Bharadwaj, Ashutosh Gole.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for conclusive and irrefutable proof for altering the date of birth in service records, adherence to prescribed time limits, and consideration of the impact on other employees in the cadre.
Headnote:
Alteration of Date of Birth - Service Records - Rule 16-A of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, Rule 38 of the Maharashtra Civil Service (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1981 - The judgment discusses the alteration of the date of birth in service records and the legal provisions under Rule 16-A of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 and Rule 38 of the Maharashtra Civil Service (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1981. The court highlights the importance of conclusive and irrefutable proof for altering the date of birth and the impact of such alterations on other employees in the cadre awaiting promotion.
Fact of the Case:
The Union of India and State of Maharashtra filed writ petitions to challenge the alteration of the date of birth of respondent No. 1 from 1 June, 1956 to 5 October, 1958. The respondent No. 1 was appointed as Deputy Collector in 1984, and after several years, sought to change his date of birth. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) allowed the alteration, directing the petitioners to effect changes in the service records and award consequential benefits to the respondent No. 1. The petitioners challenged this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent No. 1 failed to provide conclusive and irrefutable proof for altering the date of birth. It emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed time limits for such alterations and the impact on other employees in the cadre. The court also noted that the respondent No. 1 did not pursue the application for alteration with proper dispatch and that the material produced on record was not conclusive or irrefutable. The court set aside the CAT's decision, finding that it ignored the legal principles and considerations such as delay, laches, acquiescence, and estoppel.
Issues: The issues revolved around the application for alteration of the date of birth, compliance with the prescribed time limits, the sufficiency of evidence, and the impact of the alteration on other employees in the cadre.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for conclusive and irrefutable proof for altering the date of birth, adherence to prescribed time limits, and consideration of the impact on other employees in the cadre. It also highlighted the importance of addressing delay, laches, acquiescence, and estoppel in such cases.
Final Decision: The court set aside the CAT's decision, finding that the respondent No. 1 failed to provide conclusive and irrefutable proof for altering the date of birth and that the CAT ignored legal principles and relevant considerations.
M.S. SONAK, J.
1. Rule in both petitions. At the request of and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. The Union of India and State of Maharashtra filed the aforesaid two writ petitions to challenge the judgment and order dated 8 March, 2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) allowing the Original Application No. 743 of 2014 instituted by respondent No. 1, in the matter of change of his date of birth from 1 June, 1956 to 5 October, 1958.
3. In pursuance of recommendations of the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC), the respondent No. 1 vide appointment order dated 18 January, 1984 was appointed as Deputy Collector in the State of Maharashtra with effect from 6 February, 1984. At the time of such appointment, his date of birth was recorded as 1 June, 1956 in the service book. This was on the basis of School Leaving Certificate furnished by the respondent No. 1 himself. It is the case of the respondent No. 1 that by application dated 31 January, 1989, he applied for change in the service record of his date of birth from 1 June, 1956 to 5 October, 1958. It is further his case that for almost eight years, the authorities took no action whatsoever in the matter. On 26 September, 2000, the Divisional Commissioner, Pune raised some queries, which, respondent No. 1 claims, were duly answered. On 30 March, 2005, the respondent No. 1 was promoted/inducted into the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) Cadre. On 15 December, 2008, the State Government, once again raised certain queries, in pursuance of which the respondent No. 1 furnished some documents on 18 September, 2010. On 4 May, 2011, the State Government, by order, declined to change the date of birth in service records.
4. The respondent No. 1 instituted an original application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT), questioning the order dated 4 May, 2011. The original application was rejected by the MAT on 10 March, 2014, inter-alia, on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction in the matter, since the respondent No. 1, by then, had already been promoted/inducted into IAS Cadre.
5. The respondent No. 1, on 21 March, 2014, once again made representation to the State Government. Such representation was forwarded by the State Government to the Central Government on 30 May, 2014. By order dated 26 August, 2014, the Central Government turned down the request of respondent No. 1 for change in service records.
6. The respondent No. 1, thereupon, instituted Original Application No. 743 of 2014 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which has since been allowed by the impugned judgment and order dated 8 March, 2016. The petitioners, i.e., the Central Government and State Government have been directed to effect changes in the service records of respondent No. 1 by way of substitution of the date 5 October, 1958, instead of 1 June, 1956. The petitioners have been directed to award consequential benefits to the respondent No. 1, which would include inter-alia, extension in service, on the basis of altered date of birth. Aggrieved by such impugned judgment and order, both the Central Government and State Government, have preferred present petitions.
7. Mr. Anil Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India and Mr. V. B. Thadani, learned AGP for the State of Maharashtra have made the following submissions in support of their respective petitions:
(A) There is serious doubt as to whether the respondent No. 1 had indeed applied for change in date of birth in the service records within a period of five years from the date of appointment. The circumstance that the alleged application dated 31 January, 1989 was accompanied by an affidavit dated 1 March, 1989, in fact, renders it impossible that any complete application seeking such change was made within a period of five years from the date of initial appointment. The learned counsel submitted that in absence of satisfactory p
