J&K&L HC Quashes 65-Year-Old's Detention, says Cattle Smuggling isn't Public Disorder  ||  Karnataka HC Bars Denial of MV Inspector Posts over Experience with Non-Existent HGV/HPV Vehicles  ||  P&H HC: Lengthy Incarceration alone is No Substantial Change for Repeat Bail Plea  ||  Meghalaya HC Flags Amicus' Non-Appearance amid Lawyers' Strike, Stresses Loyalty to Justice  ||  MP HC: Arms Act doesn't allow Sports Firearm Licence Conversion to Self-Defence Category  ||  Delhi HC: Public Funding of LTC, CGHS Benefits doesn't Mandate Personal Disclosure under RTI  ||  Delhi HC: Fake Caste Certificate alone cannot Justify Removing Advocate from State Rolls  ||  Delhi HC Refuses to Stop Sale of 47 Law Books in Family Copyright Dispute  ||  Supreme Court: S. 394 IPC Conviction Requires Proof of Robbery or Attempted Robbery  ||  Supreme Court Questions MP HC's Cryptic Reduction of Murder Conviction as 'Shocking'    

Gajanan Badansing Rabde vs. The Chief Administrative Officer - (High Court of Bombay) (30 May 2023)

Employee cannot approach the employer at the fag end of his employment seeking a change in the date of birth

MANU/MH/1950/2023

Service

The Petitioner who is in employment of the respondents - Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran has approached present Court at the fag end of his service tenure praying for change of his date of birth in the service record from 4 June, 1965 to 26 August, 1966.

The Petitioner has filed the present petition after delay of almost 33 years, even assuming that an application was made by the Petitioner on 7 May, 1990 for change of his date of birth on the basis of domicile certificate. The Petitioner did not take any steps to pursue such application for such inordinately long period of almost 33 years. It appears that on the eve of his retirement, the petitioner has woken up from deep slumber and reapplied for correction of the date of birth in the service record, by his application dated 24 February, 2023. A person cannot be permitted to sleep over his rights. In these circumstances, only on the ground of delay and latches, the petition ought not to be entertained.

The Respondents have seriously disputed the Petitioner making an application dated 7 May 1990 for change of date of birth on the basis of domicile certificate. Such document is not on record of the Respondents, which itself is a disputed question of fact, which certainly cannot be gone into in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, once the case of the Petitioner on the basis of his representation / application dated 7 May 1990 cannot be accepted, then the Petitioner's case is merely on the fresh application filed by the petitioner on 24 February 2023, on the basis of which the Petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court to seek change in the date of birth after having joined services with Respondents on 4 January 1990. Such course of action is certainly not available to the Petitioner.

It is a settled position in law that, the employee cannot approach the employer at the fag end of his employment seeking a change in the date of birth. Petition dismissed.

Tags : DOB   CHANGE   ENTITLEMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved