0804wp1178.10.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1178 OF 2010 Sheshwanti Premdas Suryawanshi - Vs.- The W. C. L. & others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders CORAM: D. D. SINHA & F. M. REIS, JJ. DATED : 08/04/2010 Heard Mr. S. V. Sohoni, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mehadia, learned Counsel for the respondents. The controversy in the petition is in respect of the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in the Service Book of petitioner kept by the employer- respondent-W.C.L. Considered the rival contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel. The following facts stated in para 3 of the submission on behalf of the respondents are not in dispute : “That the respondents on 26.6.1987 in order to update its record and to verify the correctness of entries in the service record/book of the petitioner had called upon the employees to fill in the service excerpts, in which the petitioner herself has given her date of birth as 1.7.1950 and has acknowledged the same by putting her thumb impression. A copy of service excerpt 0804wp1178.10.odt 2/2 is annexed herewith as Annexure-R-3. In the similar manner the petitioner has also mentioned her date of birth as 1.7.1950 in the Form PS-4 & PS-5. It is further humbly submitted that the petitioner has availed LTC in the year 1990 and in the form availing LTC she has mentioned her age as 40 Yrs., whereby meaning that when she was 40 yrs. Of her age in the year 1990 then rightly she has attained the age of her retirement i.e. 60 yrs. in the year 2010.” In view of the above referred facts mentioned in the submission, it is evident that the petitioner, on her own, has given a date of birth as 01/7/1950 which has been treated to be her true and correct date of birth by respondent No. 2. Hence, there is no reason for us to find fault with the procedure adopted by the respondents in this regard. No case is made out for interference. The writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE wwl