State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs Madhukar Vitthal Kale (Since Deceased) ... on 2 August, 2008
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO. 896 OF 2007 Date of filing : 16/07/2008 @ MISC. APPL. NO. 1281 OF 2007 Date of order : 02/08/2008 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 211 OF 2004 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : SATARA Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. thru its 1. Executive engineer O & M Division, Sonegirwadi, Yeshwant Nagar, Wai, Tal. Wai, Dist. Satara 2. Assistant Engineer, Wai Sub Division, Kisanwir Chowk, Tal. Wai, Dist. Satara. 3. The Secretary Maharashtra State Electricity Holding Co. Ltd., Provident Fund Trust thru Joint Accountant (Provident Fund), Estrella Batteries Extension Building, Dharavi Road, Matunga, Mumbai 400 019. Appellants/org. O.Ps. V/s. Madhukar Vitthal Kale (Since deceased) Thru his legal heirs & representatives 1. Smt. Mandakini Madhukar Kale 2. Hemant Madhukar Kale 3. Shirish Madhukar Kale 4. Girish Madhukar Kale 5. Sou. Savita Sanjay Deshpande All r/o. 108/B, Vyankat Purapeth, Divekar Colony, Plot No.13, Tal. & Dist. Satara. Respondents/org. complainants Corum : Justice Mr.B.B. Vagyani, Honble President Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Judicial Member
Smt. S.P. Lale, Honble Member Present: Mr.S.S. Jinsiwale, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr.H.M. Kale, Advocate for the respondents.
- : ORDER :-
Per Justice Mr. B.B. Vagyani, Honble President This appeal filed by org. O.Ps. in consumer complaint No.211/2004 is directed against the order dated 30/05/2007 passed by District Consumer Forum Satara. The District Consumer Forum Satara allowed the complaint and directed the M.S.E.D.Co. to pay arrears of Provident Fund. The Forum below directed the M.S.E.D.Co. to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of arrears of Provident Fund. The Forum below further directed the M.S.E.D.Co. to pay Rs.3,500/- and Rs.1,000/- to the complainant by way of compensation for mental agony and cost of the litigation.
We heard Mr.S.S. Jinsiwale, Advocate for the appellants/org. O.Ps. and Mr.H.M. Kale, Advocate for the respondents/org. complainants.
Madhukar Vitthal Kale was appointed as Line Helper on 21/06/1966. During the course of time, he was promoted. He was made to retire on 12/08/2002 on the ground that his birth date is 01/07/1937 instead of 10/12/1942. He was not paid the arrears of provident fund. Therefore, he filed consumer complaint. The said complaint was resisted by the M.S.E.D.Co./org. O.Ps. According to the O.Ps., birth date of Madhukar Kale was 01/07/1937. In School Leaving Certificate, birth date of Madhukar Kale was shown as 01/07/1937. The Forum below partly allowed the complaint and granted reliefs to the complainant as referred above.
There is no dispute that when Madhukar Kale was appointed his birth date was shown as 10/12/1942 in his Service Book. There was no dispute of correctness of the birth date till 2001. In 2001 the appellants started inquiry about birth date of Madhukar Kale. The appellants obtained School Leaving Certificate wherein the birth date of Madhukar Kale is shown as 01/07/1937 and relying on the School Leaving Certificate further action of retirement was taken.
The short question for consideration is to whether action of the employer to correct the birth date at the fag end of service is justified in law. It is well settled legal position that nobody is allowed to change the birth date recorded in the Service Book at the fag end of service.
The Supreme Court in the case of UP Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad V/s.Raj Kumar Agnihotri, 2005 (5) All MR (SC) 822, has held that the correction of entries with regard to date of birth made in the Government records on the basis of which the Government servant got the service cannot be allowed to be changed just before few years of his retirement or at the fag end of his retirement.
Madhukar Kale was appointed as Line Helper on 21/06/1966. The Service Book was maintained at the time of appointment. The date of birth of Madhukar Kale was shown as 10/12/1942. There was no dispute about birth date of Madhukar Kale as shown in the Service Book admittedly maintained by the appellants. At no point of time dispute was raised about the birth date of Madhukar Kale. There was absolutely no challenge to the birth date of Madhukar Kale till 2001. At the fag end of retirement, it was appellants, who started inquiry about the birth date and after getting School Leaving Certificate, corrected the birth date at the fag end of retirement of Madhukar Kale. This action of the appellants is contrary to the well settled principles of law. There was no occasion for the appellants to open an inquiry with regard to correctness of birth date of Madhukar Kale at the fag end of his retirement. A dispute with regard to correctness of the birth date is raised after 35 years. This is not justified in law.
The Learned Advocate Mr.Jinsiwale relied upon judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Radha Kishum V/s. Union of India & Ors., in SLP (C) No.3721/1997 decided on 28/02/1997 (All India Services Law Journal). The Supreme Court observed in the case of Radha Kishum that the illegal action cannot be legalized by making payment to the person who overstayed in service. In the said case the employee was due to retire on 31/05/1991. He was continued upto 31/05/1994. The employer asked the employee to repay payment made for the three extra years. The Supreme Court held that the action of recovery of payment made for three years is not illegal. The ratio of this case cannot be pressed into service. In the present case, in the service record maintained by the appellants, birth date of Madhukar Kale was shown since beginning as 10/12/1942 and same was continued till 2001 without any if and but.
Regulation 9(2) of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations also states that the age of the employee shall be computed from the date of birth, evidence of which shall be produced by the employee to the satisfaction of the Competent Authority at the time of employment or within such a period as the Appointing Authority may direct, in any case within six months of appointment. We therefore hold that the action of the appellants in correcting the birth date of its employee after 35 years that too at the fag end of retirement is contrary to the well settled legal position of law. We therefore hold that the impugned order under challenge does not suffer from any illegality. In the result, we pass the following order:-
-: ORDER :-
1.
Appeal stands dismissed summarily with no order as to costs.
2. Misc. Appl. No.1281/2007, which is for stay stands disposed of.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
(S. P. Lale) (P.N. Kashalkar) (B.B. Vagyani) Member Judicial Member President dd.