Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 134 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing Cidco vs Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar on 15 May, 2009

Mayaram S/O Sahajram Sadhwani vs Teh Collector, Washim And 3 Others on 15 September, 2022

30. The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh (supra), State of Maharashtra and another Vs. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble (supra) and CIDCO Vs. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevalekar (supra), all pertained to the question as to whether the request of employee for change of date of birth at the fag end of the career can be entertained or not. It has been categorically held that such request cannot be entertained at the behest of the employee. In this regard, it is an admitted position that as per Rule 38 of the aforesaid Rules read with relevant Government Resolutions and Circulars, request for change of date of birth after five years of having joined service cannot be entertained at the behest of the employee. But, the crucial question is, as to whether such action of alteration of date of birth cannot be undertaken by the employer after the period of five years of joining of the employee and towards end of service career of the employee. As noted above, in the judgment and order dated 14/10/2013, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2264 of 2012, in the first round of litigation between the parties, after referring to Rule 38 of the said Rules, it was held that under Rule 38(2)(f), although alteration of the PAGE 20 CORRECTED-Judgment WP 1015.2018.odt entry of date of birth once made in the service book is not to be allowed, but, it is also provided that such alteration may take place in specific circumstance. It is for this reason that in the said judgment and order, while remanding the matter to the Chief Officer respondent - Municipal Council, it was categorically held that no fault can be found with the Municipal Council in the facts and circumstances of the present case in initiating the process of alteration of date of birth of petitioner, virtually towards the end of his career.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

S. Prajith vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 17 September, 2025

169. This Court in CIDCO v. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar [CIDCO v. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar, (2009) 7 SCC 283: (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 319], has observed that the records LPA 171/2023 Page 8 of 14 maintained by statutory authorities have a presumption of correctness in their favour and they would prevail over any entry made in the school register. The Court observed thus: (SCC p. 288, para 18) "18. The deaths and births register maintained by the statutory authorities raises a presumption of correctness. Such entries made in the statutory registers are admissible in evidence in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act. It would prevail over an entry made in the school register, particularly, in absence of any proof that same was recorded at the instance of the guardian of the respondent.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Date Of Decision: 30Th November vs Union Of India on 30 November, 2012

8. The judgement pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIDCO v/s Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar (supra) cannot be made applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. In the said case, in the application form submitted by the Respondent before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in response to the memo dated 25/07/1975, the date of birth was typed as 02/10/1948. The year was corrected in handwriting as 1950 in the form itself by the Respondent. The Birth Certificate produced by the Respondent before the Supreme Court showed the date of birth to be 02/10/1950. The Seniority list, the Gradation list, the Retirement list, etc. submitted by the Respondent before the Supreme Court showed the date of birth as 02/10/1950. The authority issued the notices, first of such notice was in 1997 and thereafter in 2004 asking the Respondent to submit the documents. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the charge of interpolation of Service Records cannot be sustained since in all other records i.e. Gradation list, Seniority list and Retirement list, the date of 8 OA No. 503/2012 birth was shown as 02/10/1950. The other judgements relied by the Applicant are relating to the trial of offences under Criminal law, and has no bearing in adjudication of the service dispute.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahipal Yadav vs M/O Finance on 11 May, 2023

14. Coming to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIDCO vs. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar (supra) as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandvilkar vs. The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (supra), relied upon by the applicant, we do not agree with the same, since in the said case, several office records categorically showed the correct date of birth and there were large number of documents produced in support of the said contention be it gradation list, seniority list as well as the retirement list of CIDCO employees. In the present case except the Birth Certificate dated 23.04.2008, there was no single document ever produced by the applicant in support of his contention. Also the birth certificate issued in 14 OA No. 283/2016 the year 2008 neither showed his name nor showed the name of his mother.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Parul Bharatkumar Modi vs Regional Passport Officer on 5 April, 2016

6. Considering   the   above   facts   and   circumstances   and   also   the  decision   in   case   of  Cidco   V.   Vasudha   Gorakhnath   Mandevlekar  (supra), the passport authority is hereby directed to process the  application of the petitioner without insisting for correction of the  Page  2 of  3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Tue Apr 12 00:30:49 IST 2016 C/SCA/4421/2016                                                                                                                                        ORDER discrepancy   found   in   the   School   Leaving   Certificate   and   Birth  Certificate as regards surname of the petitioner. The said exercise  shall be undertaken within a period of two weeks from today.
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A J Desai - Full Document

Kirti vs Union Of India Ors & Ors. on 25 April, 2024

11. A reading of paras 167 to 170 of the decision in Jigya Yadav reveals that cases in which the correction is sought on the basis of the Signature Not Verified WP(C) 5961/2023 Page 8 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT Digitally Signed KUMAR By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date:02.05.2024 Signing Date:02.05.2024 15:08:19 15:06:06 details entered in public records have been regarded as being on a different footing, inasmuch as Section 67 read with Sections 79 and 80 of the Evidence Act, 1872 extends a legal presumption of validity to public records. The Supreme Court has also relied, in this context, in its earlier decision in CIDCO v. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar4.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next