Bombay High Court

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MSRTC, RATNAGIRI DIVISION, RATNAGIRIversusSMT. MANASI PRAFUL PRABHU

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

No relief can be granted to a belated claim for modification of date of birth at the end of service; the impugned judgment is unsustainable.

Summary

The Divisional Controller of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) filed a writ petition challenging a judgment that granted retirement benefits to Smt. Manasi Praful Prabhu based on an earlier recorded date of birth (23‑02‑1960) which made her eligible for superannuation on 28‑02‑2018. The respondent sought to correct her date of birth to 23‑02‑1962 using a birth certificate filed shortly before her superannuation, thereby attempting to postpone her retirement. The Court examined whether a correction of date of birth could be permitted at the fag end of service and whether the petition raised a jurisdictional error. Relying on precedents that disallow belated claims for alteration of service records, the Court held that no law permits such modification at the end of service and that the earlier judgment was unsustainable. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, setting aside the award of retirement benefits. No costs were awarded.

Issues considered

Whether a correction of date of birth can be permitted at the fag end of service affecting the superannuation date.
Whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition challenging the retirement benefits award.
Whether a belated claim for modification of service records is maintainable under law.

Subjects

date of birth correction
superannuation
retirement benefits
service records
belated claim
jurisdiction
industrial court
MSRTC

Judgment

                                                                   WP 3184 22.odt

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     WRIT PETITION NO. 3184 OF 2022

Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C.
Ratnagiri                                     …     Petitioner

VERSUS

Smt. Manasi Praful Prabhu                     …    Respondent
                                               (Orig. Complainant)
                                        …
     Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh a/w Adv. Gurubala
                                     Birajdar
                                        …
                        CORAM                : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

                      DATE                 : 24.08.2026


PER COURT :

         Heard learned advocate Mr. Deshmukh for the petitioner. None
appears for the respondent despite service of notice for final disposal.

2.     The petitioner-Corporation is assailing judgment and award dated
21.01.2020 passed in complaint ULP No. 39/2018. Relying on the judgment
of Division Bench of our High Court in Yashwant G. Tambe Vs. Union of
India and another; in Writ Petition No. 1401/2009, decided on 18.03.2010,
Supreme Court in case of State of Gujarat and others Vs. Vali Mohmed
Dosabhai Sindhi; (2006) 6 SCC 537, Vijay Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India;
(2014) 16 Supreme Court Cases 460, it is sought to be contended that error
of jurisdiction is committed by the Court in passing the impugned judgment.
It is informed by learned counsel that the retiral benefits have already been
conferred treating the respondent to have been superannuated on
28.02.2018.



                                                                             1/3
                                                                   WP 3184 22.odt

3.      A short issue, which is no more res integra has fallen for
consideration, as to whether modification in the date of birth can be
permitted at the fag end of service ?

4.      The respondent was appointed on compassionate ground as a junior
clerk on 15.06.2007. Her date of birth was recorded to be 23.02.1960. As
per record of service, she was to attend age of superannuation on
28.02.2018. She submitted application on 31.01.2018, just before a month
soliciting correction in date of birth, relying on birth certificate Exh. U-4/4,
indicating date of birth as 23.02.1962. The petitioner issued circular on
11.11.2017 showing the age of superannuation of the respondent as
28.02.2018. Her application seeking correction in the date of birth was
rejected on 30.01.2018, which was shown to be cause of action to approach
Industrial Court.

5.      The respondent was in service from 15.06.2007, but no steps were
taken to seek correction in the date of birth. She started making applications
from 18.08.2017 seeking correction relying upon the birth certificate issued
on 25.12.2016. Her attempt to solicit correction in the birth date
commenced when she was at the verge of superannuation. It is
impermissible to seek any change in the date of birth at the fag end of the
service.

6.      Though the birth certificate at Exh. U-4/4 has a probative value, no
law is pointed out to permit modification in the date of birth, at the fag end
of service on alleged impeachable evidence.

7.      The Division Bench of our high Court in Yashwant G. Tambe (supra)
has dealt with this issue inter alia relying upon the judgment of Supreme
Court      State of Gujarat and others Vs.    Vali   Mohd.    Dosabhai Sindhi
(supra). It is laid down that no relief can be granted to such belated claims.
Relying on paragraph no. 12 of the judgment, which is squarely applicable
to the present case, I am of the view that impugned judgment is
                                                                             2/3
                                                                      WP 3184 22.odt

unsustainable.

8.      The writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘A’.

9.      There shall be no order as to costs.



                                         ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)




mkd/-




                                                                                3/3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…