1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8567 OF 2004 SHRI ANANDA SADHU BALLAL ) Age-59, Adult, Occ: Nil, ) Residing at M-23/2161, Maharashtra) Housing Board Colony, Yerwada, ) Pune – 411 006. .... ).... .... Petitioner. Versus 1) UNION OF INDIA, ) Through the Secretary, ) Ministry of Science and ) Technology, Technology Bhavan, ) New Maberally Road, ) New Delhi. ) 2) THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ) METEOROLOGY, ) Department of Meteorology, ) Lodhi Road, New Delhi. ) 3) THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR ) GENERAL OF METEOROLOGY ) (Agrimet), Shivaji Nagar, Pune. ).... .... Respondents. Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar for the Petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Chavan with Mr. Kiran Kandapile for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2 CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and J. H. BHATIA, JJ. RESERVED ON: 4TH DECEMBER, 2008. PRONOUNCED ON : 2ND FEBRUARY, 2009. (In Chamber at 5.00 p.m.) JUDGMENT (Per Bilal Nazki,J.) : The petitioner got appointed as Senior Observer in the Office of the Deputy Director General of Meteorology under the Ministry of Science and Technology from 18th March, 1972. He submitted the S. S. C. Certificate at the time of his appointment for the purpose of date of birth. It reflected that his date of birth recorded was 1st June, 1942. He filed an affidavit along with extract of birth which shows his date of birth as 22nd September, 1945. His date of birth in the service record was recorded as 22nd September, 1945 and the recommendation was made to the concerned Authority to accept this as his date of birth. The Competent Authority rejected this request by letter dated 9th May, 1975 on the ground that the S.S.C. Certificate was a conclusive proof of the date of birth of the petitioner. The petitioner later retired on the basis that his date of birth was 1st June, 1942 and not 22nd September, 1945. Throughout, the 3 contention of the petitioner has been that inspite of the letter dated 9th May, 1975 rejecting his claim that his date of birth be recorded on the basis of the extract of the birth register, his recorded date of birth continued to be 22nd September, 1945. No change was effected till 1998 when objection had been raised by the Pay and Accounts Officer, Pune. Then in 1998, Pay and Accounts Officer, Pune directed change in the recorded date of birth. No hearing was given to him. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application on 17th August, 2001. The application was rejected on 10th January, 2002. Then the petitioner filed an Original Application. The Tribunal dismissed that Original Application on 13th September, 2002 holding that originally the cause of action had arisen vide letter dated 9th May, 1975 and therefore, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain the said dispute. This order of Tribunal was challenged by the petitioner in the High Court by filing writ petition. The High Court dismissed the said writ petition. The Petitioner filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. The petitioner on 2nd May, 2003, withdrew the said Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court with liberty to move the High Court for review of its order. The petitioner then approached the High Court again by moving the Review Petition No. 3 of 2004. In the said Review Petition, the High Court set aside its earlier 4 order dismissing the writ petition and also the order of the Tribunal dismissing the Original Application. The High Court, however, mentioned that it was not going into the merits of the case and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal. Accordingly, the matter again went to the Tribunal. On remand, by the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application and hence this writ petition. 2. Thus, the petitioner has been agitating this matter upto the Supreme Court right from 2001 in order to achieve result to his satisfaction. It is an admitted fact that his recorded date of birth given in the S. S.C. Certificate was 1st June, 1942. He contends that it was recorded in his service record as well when he joined the service. It was recorded by an Officer whose authority was not final. Therefore, he referred the matter to the Competent Authority and the Competent Authority on 9th May, 1975 rejected the claim of the petitioner. So the entry made at the time of appointment of the petitioner in his service record was not final. Though, it was not changed after 9th May, 1975 even then it did not attain finality. 3. The conduct of the petitioner after 9th May, 1975 has also to be taken into consideration. He never disputed the order of 9th May, 1975 which was admittedly communicated to him and which he has acknowledged. The Order of 9th May, 1975 was passed at the request made 5 by the petitioner that his date of birth be recorded in accordance with the extract of the birth register. A recommendation was made by the Officer who recorded his date of birth in the service record, but it was subject to confirmation by the Head Office and the letter written to the Head Office has been reproduced by the Tribunal. When this note was sent, the petitioner was asked to give explanation. Though no such order was made in writing, but he was asked orally and he himself replied in writing in which he contended that he came from an illiterate family and when his mother admitted him in the School, a date of birth was wrongly recorded and when he was in College he found his college had made him much younger and, therefore, he became much suspicious. He, therefore, went to collect his date of birth from the birth register maintained by the Tahsildar, Islampur, and he found that his correct date of birth was 22nd September, 1945. However, his request was finally rejected. 4. Then comes the conduct after 1975. He all along accepted his date of birth as 1st June, 1942. Even on 24th September, 1999 while submitting Form -3, about Details of his Family, to the respondent, the petitioner mentioned his date of birth as 1st June, 1942. This document has been annexed as Exhibit “F” with the counter affidavit and is not controverted. Therefore, we are of the view that the date of birth all along had been 1st 6 June, 1942 and it was never accepted as 22nd September, 1945. Though, it was recorded as 1st June, 1942 yet it was subject to confirmation and that confirmation never came, and as a matter of fact, that request was rejected as early as in the year 1975. 5. We have also seen the School Leaving Certificate. If the date of birth is taken to be 22nd September, 1945 then the petitioner appears to have passed his 7th Class examination when he was less than 10 years old, which is otherwise not possible. A Certificate issued by the Secondary School Certificate Examination Board, Maharashtra State Poona was also produced, from which it appears that the petitioner passed his 12th Std. examination in Examination held in March, 1961. This certificate also shows the date of birth of the petitioner as 1st June, 1942. The petitioner contends that his actual date of birth is 22nd September, 1945. If it is accepted then he passed his 12th Std. examination at the age of only 15 plus years, which otherwise is improbable. If we take his date of birth as 1st June, 1942, which is recorded then he passed his 12th Std. examination in March, 1961 when he was plus 18 years, which appears to be quite reasonable. 6. For these reasons, we do not find any merits in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. Rule discharged. 7 7. No order as to costs. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (J. H. BHATIA,J.)