-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 836 OF 2007 Shri Arvind Uddhavrao Badave .. Appellant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra, through .. Respondent. Collector, Satara & Ors. --- Mr. D.S.Mhaispurkar for the Appellant. Mr. S.N.Gavade for the Respondent. --- CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 05TH AUGUST, 2008. DATED : 05TH AUGUST, 2008. DATED : 05TH AUGUST, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The second appeal arises out of the Judgment and decree dated 31st of March, 2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Satara by which the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dated 5th of October, 2006 came to be confirmed. 2. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the appellant/plaintiff’s claim that his date of birth is 04.06.1948 cannot be accepted in the light of the evidence on record. Both the courts below, therefore, have recorded a finding of fact as regards the date of birth of the plaintiff and there is, therefore, -: 2 :- absolutely no merit in the second appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, pursuant to the interim order passed on Exh.‘5’ dated 13th June, 2005 in the regular civil suit No. 161/2005, the appellant-plaintiff was allowed to work till he reached the age of superannuation as per the date of birth claimed by him i.e. 04.06.1948. It is undisputed position that the appellant has been paid salary and other benefits for the said period. In view of the fact that as per the respondent’s record the date of birth of the plaintiff is 02.06.1946, the plaintiff would be entitled to retiral benefits including pension and gratuity on the basis of the said date of birth i.e. 02.06.1946. 3. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is dismissed. ( R.M.SAVANT, J.) .....