1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3684 of 2009 (Shashikala M. Warpatkar v. The Chief General Manager and another) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri Atul Pande, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri S.C. Mehadia, Advocate for Respondents. Coram : R.C. Chavan, J. Dated : 30 th September, 2009 This petition by an employee, who is to retire today according to the date of birth recorded by the employer, is directed against the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur, whereby he rejected the petitioner’s application for interim relief, which would have allowed her to continue beyond today, that is till she attains superannuation on 14-10-2016. The petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground on the death of her husband in the year 1996. Since, except for voter’s identity card, no other evidence of age was produced as per the rules in force, the employer got the petitioner medically 2 examined and fixed her age to be 48 years at that time. The petitioner claims to have objected to in the year 1999, but that is a disputed fact. She filed a dispute before the Conciliation Officer, who submitted a failure report to the Central Government, which made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal. The learned counsel for the respondent-employer points out that in a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. S.C. Chadha, reported at (2004) 3 SCCC 394, the Court had observed in para 11 as under : “11. An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the courts, tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose the promotion forever. Cases are not unknown when a 3 person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. This is certainly an important and relevant aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the court or the tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such, unless a clear case on the basis of clinching materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent and that too within a reasonable time as provided in the rules governing the service, the court or the tribunal should not issue a direction or make a declaration on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued or declaration made, the court or the tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application has to be filed, then such application must be within at least a reasonable time. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. ...” In view of this, since the petitioner 4 would always be entitled to be compensated, if it is eventually found by the Tribunal that her date of birth was wrong, there is no question of granting interim relief, which would in fact dispose of the whole dispute. In view of this, the petition is dismissed. The learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur, would undoubtedly dispose of the proceedings before him within a reasonable period and in any case within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. Judge. pdl