##PAGE1##

2025:BHC-OS:26741

k 1/7 17 wpl 38786.25 os.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.38786 OF 2025

Rukmini Hanumanta Gajare ....Petitioner

V/S

Rashtriya Chemicals &

Fertilizers Limited &

Ameya Enterprises ....Respondents

_________

Mr. Shailesh K. More, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Sheroy M. Bodhanwalla with Ms. Sayali Puri, Mr. Akash Singh &

Mr. Rohan Jadhav i/b M/s. M.S. Bhodhanwalla & Co. for

Respondent No.1.

__________

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATE : 23 DECEMBER 2025.

P.C.:

1. By this Petition, Petitioner challenges the Award dated 7 March

2025 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-2,

Mumbai (CGIT) answering the Reference in the negative. Petitioner

had sought a direction for change of date of birth in the service records

of her employer and continuation of service based on date of birth 15

June 1964.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Petitioner was engaged by a

Contractor Mr. A.A. Pradhan in the year 1984 as a Gardener for

performance of contract granted by Respondent No.1 in its

Horticulture Department. It appears that later the contractor of the

Petitioner was M/s. Ameya Enterprises. It appears that in various

documents relating to the service of the Petitioner, her date of birth

katkam Page No. 1 of 7

::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/04/2026 09:08:05 :::

k 2/7 17 wpl 38786.25 os.doc

was recorded as 20 July 1956. Contractor Ameya Enterprises issued

letter dated 21 July 2016 to the Petitioner informing her that she would

retire from service on 31 July 2016 on account of completion of age of

60 years. Petitioner approached the Union which raised dispute upon

failure of conciliation proceedings. Industrial Dispute was referred for

adjudication to CGIT. In the meantime, the Petitioner retired on 31

July 2016. The Industrial Court has answered the Reference in the

negative by impugned Award dated 7 March 2025, which is subject

matter of challenge in the present Petition.

3. I have heard Mr. More, the learned counsel appearing for

Petitioner and Mr. Bodhanwalla, the learned counsel appearing for

Respondent No.1. I have gone through the findings recorded by the

CGIT in the impugned Award. I have also perused the records of the

case.

4. In the present case, Petitioner raised a demand for change of her

date of birth after she received intimation dated 21 July 2016 by her

employer (Respondent No.2). This intimation was given to her 10 days

before her proposed retirement on 31 July 2016. When the Petitioner

was on the verge of retirement, she produced copy of School Leaving

Certificate indicating her date of birth as 15 June 1964. Thus by

producing School Leaving Certificate with date of birth of 15 June

1964, the Petitioner actually claimed right to continue in service for

next eight years.

5. It is well settled position of law that disputes relating to date of

birth cannot be permitted to be raised by employee at the fag end of

their service. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Harnam

katkam Page No. 2 of 7

::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/04/2026 09:08:05 :::

Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 162 has held that even if law of limitation applies harshly, the

Courts and Tribunals cannot come to the aid of those who sleep over

their rights and do not raise a dispute relating to change of date of

birth. The same principles are reiterated in General Manager,

Southeastern Coal Fields Ltd. vs. Avinash Kumar Tiwari, (2023) Live Law (SC) 124; and Bharat

Cooking Coal Ltd. & Ors. vs. Sham Kishore Singh, k 3/7 17 wpl 38786.25 os.doc .

6. In State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Sudhir Bhagwat Kalekar ⁴

Division Bench of this Court of which (I was a member) has held in

paragraphs 15 to 18 as under:

“15. The Apex Court has time and again held that applications for

change of date of birth at the fag end of service cannot be entertained.

Reference in this regard can be made to the judgments of the Apex Court in

(i) General Manager, Southeastern Coal Fields Ltd. V/s. Avinash Kumar

Tiwa