An employer cannot dispute an employee's recorded birth date post-retirement to deny service benefits, affirming that such objections constitute negligence.

JUDGMENT :

ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking following reliefs :

“A) For a writ of mandamus Order or direction in nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to pay amount of Provident Fund, Earned Leave Encashment, Increments, Difference of Salary and Allowances due to revision of Pay Scales as per recommendations of Seventh Pay Commission by considering date of retirement of petitioner as 31.12.2019 alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. till actual realization.

B) For a writ of mandamus Order or direction in nature of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to make payment of outstanding amount as per Order dated 25.06.2021, passed by respondent No.2.

C) Pending hearing and the final disposal of the present Writ Petition, respondent No. 1 be directed to deposit amount of Provident Fund, Earned Leave Encashment, Increments, Difference of Salary and Allowances due to revision of Pay Scales as per recommendations of Seventh Pay Commission in this Hon'ble Court.

D) Ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause "C".”

3. Factual matrix of the matter are as follows :

i. In short, the petitioner’s case is that pursuant to an advertisement issued by respondent No.1-Agriculture Produce Market Committee (hereinafter called as “APMC”), the petitioner applied for the post of Junior Clerk. While making an application, in support of his age proof the petitioner submitted his School Leaving Certificate in which the birth date of the petitioner is shown as 01.01.1960. After finding him eligible, the respondent-APMC appointed the petitioner to the post of Junior Clerk vide appointment order dated 09.09.1985. On 29.10.1986, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondent-APMC stating that inadvertently birth date of the petitioner in School record is shown as 01.01.1960 whereas it should have been 01.01.1962. In support of said application, the petitioner also submitted his affidavit duly verified before the Tahsildar in which the petitioner has stated on oath that the birth date of the petitioner is not 01.01.1960 but it is 01.01.1962. Pursuant to the said application, the respondent-APMC recorded the birth date of the petitioner in his service record as 01.01.1962.

ii. The petitioner initially was promoted to the post of Grader and thereafter as per seniority the petitioner came to be promoted as Supervisor, which post the petitioner held till his date of retirement i.e. 31.12.2019. After petitioner stood retired he requested the respondent-APMC to pay his service benefits such as provident fund, earned leave encashment, difference of salary and allowance due to revision of pay scale. However, the respondent-APMC did not pay the said service benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly approached Respondent No.3-District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society which is a competent authority having supervisory control over the respondent-APMC. The said competent authority after hearing the petitioner as well as the respondent-APMC and after perusal of service record of the petitioner by its order dated 25.06.2021 held that as per birth date recorded in the service book i.e. 01.01.1962, the petitioner rightly retired on 31.12.2019 and therefore the respondent-APMC has been directed to pay the service benefits of the petitioner. It is further case of the petitioner that though the competent authority by its order d