INTRODUCTION
The High Court of Bombay bench at Aurangabad passed a judgement on 30 May 2023. In the case of GAJANAN B. RABDE VS THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, MAHARASHTRA JEEVAN PRADHIKARAN & ANR IN WRIT PETITION NO.9744 OF 2023 which was passed by a single bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. KULKARNI, the court examined a petition filed by an employee of Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, who sought a change in his date of birth from June 4, 1965, to August 26, 1966, at the end of his service tenure. The petitioner based his request on a domicile certificate and a birth certificate obtained shortly before his retirement. This blog post will analyse the judgment and discuss the court’s reasoning behind dismissing the petition.
FACTS
The petitioner had joined the respondent’s employment on January 4, 1990, declaring his date of birth as June 4, 1965, based on his school leaving certificate. In support of his claim, the petitioner presented a domicile certificate issued on April 30, 1990, which stated his date of birth as August 26, 1966. The petitioner also claimed to have submitted application on May 7, 1990, requesting a change in his date of birth. However, the respondents disputed the existence of this application.
The petitioner, just before his retirement, obtained a birth certificate dated January 12, 2022, which indicated his date of birth as August 26, 1966. The certificate, however, was registered on December 13, 1993, several years after the petitioner’s birth and after he had already joined the employment. Relying on this birth certificate, the petitioner submitted a fresh application on February 24, 2023, seeking a change in his date of birth.
THE PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the respondents should consider the documents submitted by the petitioner, including the birth certificate, and make the necessary modifications in the service record. They contended that the petitioner was initially unable to provide a birth certificate and relied on the school leaving certificate. However, now that a birth certificate was available, it should be accepted. The counsel also relied on a previous case where a similar change in date of birth was accepted.
THE RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
The respondent’s counsel opposed the petition on various grounds. Firstly, they argued that the petitioner should not be allowed to approach the court at the fag end of his service seeking a change in his date of birth. They claimed that the petition was barred by principles of delay and laches since the petitioner had not pursued his application for change of date of birth for a period of almost 33 years.
The respondents also raised objections to the validity of the birth certificate obtained by the petitioner, as it was registered 27 years after his birth, contrary to the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. They also disputed the existence of the petitioner’s representation/application dated May 7, 1990, as it was not on record.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND DECISION
After considering the arguments and examining the documents and precedents, the court dismissed the petition. The court noted that the petitioner had filed the petition after a significant delay of almost 33 years. Even if the petitioner had made an application in 1990, he did not take any steps to pursue it during that lengthy period. The court found it peculiar that the petitioner had only sought a change in his date of birth at the end of his service tenure.
The court emphasized that a person cannot be permitted to sleep over their rights and approach the employer for changes in the date of birth at the fag end of their career. It referred to several Supreme Court judgments that had consistently held that such changes could not be allowed in the final stages of employment. The court cited the principle that employees should not be allowed to seek alterations in their date of birth after remaining silent.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY VETHIKA D PORWAL, BMS COLLEGE OF LAW
