P&H HC: Offence u/s 295A won’t be Attracted if Act done Without Malicious Intent  ||  Ker. HC: No Liability on RTO to Pay Compensation if Vehicle Owner Fails to get it Insured  ||  Guj. HC: Elected Members Must Not Disrepute the Institution to Which they are Elected  ||  All. HC: Scheme of A&C Act Put no Limitation for Application of Doctrine of Severability to an Award  ||  Kar. HC: Apprehension of Not Getting a Fair Trial is Required to Seek Transfer of Case  ||  Ker. HC: Not Granting Divorce Despite Mutual Consent Amounts to Cruelty  ||  Tel. HC: Elders in the House Can’t Decide Custody of Child  ||  All. HC: Gravity of Misconduct and Past Conduct Relevant to be Considered by Disciplinary Authority  ||  P&H HC Issues Guidelines on Proclamation u/s 82 CrPC  ||  SC: Can File Complaint Under Repealed FERA Provisions During Sunset Period After Enforcement of FEMA    

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 2023 - All Rights Reserved