agk agk agk 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.13 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.308 OF 2008 Prakash Gajanan Shimpi .. Appellant. Versus The Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company & Another .. Respondents. Ms.Seema Sarnaik for the appellant. Mr.C.M. Acharya for respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & J.P. DEVADHAR, J. J.P. DEVADHAR, J. J.P. DEVADHAR, J. DATED : 3rd March, 2008 DATED : 3rd March, 2008 DATED : 3rd March, 2008 P.C. : 1. This letters patent appeal is filed against the Judgment and Order dated 28-01-2008 wherein the learned Single Judge while allowing the Writ petition, quashed the order passed by the Industrial Court on 30-11-2007. 2. Relevant facts are that since 1972 the Appellant was employed with the then Maharasthra State Electricity Board. In the service records, date of birth of the Appellant was shown as 29-11-1949 on the basis of the documents furnished by the Appellant. agk agk agk 2 3. On 5-4-1989, the Appellant sought rectification of the service records on the ground that his date of birth should be 29-11-1950 in stead of 29-11-1949. By an order dated 24-07-1990, the application for rectification was rejected on the ground that no correction in the records could be made beyond one year. No appeal was filed against the said order. 4. When the respondent published a list of employees who were to retire in the year 2007, the appellant filed complaint (ULP) No.87 of 2007 seeking rectification of the date of birth. By an interim order dated 30-11-2007, the Industrial Court directed that the services of the appellant be continued till 30-11-2008. Challenging the aforesaid order, respondent filed Writ Petition NO.308 of 2008 and the same was allowed and the Industrial Court was directed to dispose of the complaint (ULP) No.897 of 2007 as expeditiously as possible and preferably by 30-06-2008. Challenging the aforesaid order, the present appeal is filed. 5. The contention of the petitioner is that the date of birth of the appellant shown in the S.S.C. board certificate is 29-11-1950 and, therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the order passed by the Industrial Court. agk agk agk 3 There is no merit in this contention because, the amendment in the S.S.C. certificate regarding the date of birth was carried out on 11-12-2007 and the application made by the appellant on 5-4-1999 seeking rectification was rejected far back on 24-7-1990. In these circumstances, decision of the learned Single Judge in setting aside the order passed by the Industrial Court and directing that the matter be investigated cannot be faulted. 6. We see no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE J.P. DEVADHAR, J.