ssp 1 WP 6207 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6207 of 2010 Indira Raghunath Nagpure .....Petitioner versus Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.S.D.Patil i/by Mr.P.P.Jadhav, for the petitioner. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP, for respondent Nos.2 and 4. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR& A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE: 07th JANUARY, 2011. P.C. : 1. The petitioner who had joined services of the Institute as back as in the year 1978, applied for the first time for change in her birth date in the school record maintained by the employer on 06-04-2002. Learned AGP has pointed out that reply was given to the petitioner on 07-05-2002, by which the request made by the petitioner, was rejected on the ground that such a request for change in the birth date cannot be considered after a lapse of five years from initial appointment. The said order is annexed by the petitioner along with the petition at page No.32. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said letter/order was never communicated to the petitioner. Even if that be so, the petitioner has failed to take out any proceedings before the ssp 2 WP 6207 of 2010 Court of law for all these years and the petitioner is going to retire by way of superannuation in March 2011 and she approached this Court with a prayer that the respondent-Corporation may be directed to change the date of birth. 2. The petitioner with a view to come out from the problem of delay, has again applied to the Commissioner of the respondent- Corporation as well as to the School authorities and Education Officer on 05-04-2010 for correcting the birth date in the service record and she had not received any replies to her earlier application for change of birth date. This obviously done with a view to make out a case that the petitioner approached the Court within a reasonable time of limitation. The School authorities replied on 06-04-2010, informing the petitioner that her application was already rejected on 07-05-2002. It is required to be noted that the petitioner approached this Court at the time of her fag end of her career. 3. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of R.K.Jangra V/s. State of Punjab & Ors., 2009(4) ALL MR 916, wherein it was held that in a case where representation is made within two years of joining service, the Supreme Court directed the employer to consider his representation in the light of material produced by him. In the instant ssp 3 WP 6207 of 2010 case, it is an admitted position that the petitioner after joining duties after her initial appointment in the year 1978, for the first time applied for change of birth date in the year 2002. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat and Ors., V/s. Vali Mohd. Dosabhai Sindhi, (2006) 6 SCC 537, no relief can be given to the petitioner in any manner. It is crystal clear that the petitioner applied for change of date of birth at the verge of her retirement, only with a view to get benefit of two years of service. We accordingly do not find any substance in the petition, as the petitioner did not apply the authorities within a reasonable time and she never take out any proceedings for all these years after her initial appointment. The petitioner has never sent any remainder in case she has not received any communication to her letter dated 06-04-2002. The petitioner is throughly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. ( A.A.SAYED, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )