Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) set aside the judgment of the School Tribunal, Amravati, which had upheld the unilateral alteration of a retired teacher’s date of birth from 1 October 1962 to 15 September 1960 by the Education Officer.
Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar held that the Education Officer acted without authority and in breach of natural justice, as the change was made at the fag end of service without any notice or hearing.
The Court restored the date of birth recorded in the service book as 1 October 1962 and directed that pensionary benefits be computed accordingly.
Facts
The petitioner was appointed as an assistant teacher on 17 March 1989, with his date of birth recorded as 1 October 1962 based on a Kotwal book entry and a sworn affidavit dated 29 December 1983.
For nearly 29 years, this entry remained unchallenged. However, in 2018, the Education Officer issued a communication approving his date of birth as 15 September 1960, effectively preponing his retirement by two years.
Treating this as “otherwise termination,” the petitioner filed Appeal No. 20 of 2018 before the School Tribunal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977, which was dismissed.
Upon challenge, the High Court held that the appeal was maintainable and remanded the matter. Meanwhile, the petitioner continued to work and retired on 1 October 2020 on the basis of the original date of birth.
The Tribunal eventually upheld the Education Officer’s decision, prompting the present writ petition challenging both the Tribunal’s order dated 3 November 2020 and the Education Officer’s communication dated 27 March 2018.
Issues
- Whether the Education Officer could unilaterally alter the petitioner’s date of birth without notice or hearing.
- Whether such alteration, made after 29 years of service, was legally sustainable.
- Whether the change could affect the petitioner’s pension and retirement benefits.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Senior Advocate R.L. Khapre argued that the petitioner’s date of birth had been duly verified and endorsed by the Headmaster under Rule 11 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981.
He submitted that once an entry was authenticated in the service book and maintained for nearly three decades, it could not be changed arbitrarily without following due process or issuing notice.
He contended that the Education Officer’s unilateral decision was illegal, arbitrary, and void, as it violated the principles of natural justice. The alteration deprived the petitioner of two years’ service and proportionate pension benefits, thereby causing severe prejudice.
He relied on the following judgments:
- Shankar Lal v. Hindustan Copper Ltd. (2022) 6 SCC 211, emphasizing that any change in date of birth without hearing is impermissible.
- Tata Memorial Centre v. Tata Memorial Hospital Kamgar Sanghatana (2006) 6 Bom CR 887, and
- Dominic Fernandes v. Voltas Ltd. (2007) 5 Bom CR 392, both underscoring that unilateral administrative actions affecting service conditions must adhere to due process.
It was also submitted that under Rule 38 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 and Annexure 53 of the Secondary School Code, changes in birth date are prohibited after five years of service entry, except under exceptional circumstances.
Respondent’s Arguments
Counsel for the management argued that the petitioner had secured employment by misrepresenting his date of birth. It was contended that the Kotwal book entry was in the name of another person (Ramchandra), while the petitioner had used the alias Prakash.
They argued that the Secondary School Certificate and Transfer Certificate clearly mentioned his date of birth as 15 September 1960, thereby establishing that the entry in the service book was fraudulent.
It was urged that the petitioner cannot claim equity on the basis of a falsified document and that the Education Officer was justified in correcting the record.
Reliance was placed on:
- Ramchandra Keshavrao Deo v. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal (2006) 2 Mh LJ 862,
- Mahadeo Pandurang More v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 5 Mh LJ 877,
- Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja (2008) 9 SCC 31, and
- Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan (2000) 7 SCC 529, to argue that procedural lapses do not vitiate decisions unless prejudice is proved, and that fraud vitiates all.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined Rule 11 of the 1981 Rules, which mandates that the Headmaster personally verify entries in the service book regarding date of birth. Once recorded and certified, the entry attains finality unless altered by due process.
The Court noted that the Education Officer lacked authority to alter this entry without notice or a proper inquiry, especially when it was accepted for 29 years.
The Court relied on Shankar Lal (supra) to underline that such decisions must comply with audi alteram partem — the right to be heard — particularly when they result in civil consequences like loss of pension.
It held that mere reliance on discrepancies in certificates could not justify bypassing procedural fairness. The alleged inconsistency in name and date of birth might warrant inquiry, but not unilateral correction without opportunity of defence.
Precedent Analysis
- Shankar Lal v. Hindustan Copper Ltd. (2022) 6 SCC 211 —
The Supreme Court held that changing an employee’s date of birth without hearing violates natural justice and lacks authority of law. The High Court adopted this ratio directly. - Tata Memorial Centre (2006) 6 Bom CR 887 and Dominic Fernandes (2007) 5 Bom CR 392) —
Both held that unilateral changes in service records are impermissible unless preceded by notice and inquiry. - Aligarh Muslim University (2000) 7 SCC 529 and Haryana Financial Corporation (2008) 9 SCC 31) —
Cited by respondents to argue that violation of natural justice without prejudice is a useless formality. The Court, however, distinguished these, holding that loss of two years’ pension is a substantial prejudice. - Mahadeo Pandurang More (2014) 5 Mh LJ 877) —
Relied upon to show that school service conditions are governed by MEPS Act and Rules. The Court accepted this but clarified that procedural safeguards remain integral.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Khubalkar found that the Education Officer’s communication dated 27 March 2018 was unilateral, arbitrary, and without notice. The Court emphasized that the change was effected at the “fag end of service,” thereby directly impacting the petitioner’s pensionary entitlements and civil rights.
The judge held that no fraud was established. Despite the alleged discrepancy, there was no inquiry, no show-cause notice, and no proof of intentional misrepresentation.
The management’s failure to review entries every five years, as required by Annexure 53, further weakened its case. The Court observed:
“Since the management allowed the petitioner to serve for 29 years without objection, they cannot now take advantage of their own inaction.”
The Court rejected the “useless formality” argument, noting that loss of pension is a real prejudice, not a technical irregularity.
Conclusion
The Court allowed the writ petition, holding that:
- The Tribunal’s judgment dated 3 November 2020 was quashed.
- The Education Officer’s communication dated 27 March 2018 (issued 5 April 2018) was set aside.
- The petitioner’s date of birth shall remain 1 October 1962, and pensionary benefits must be computed accordingly.
The Court reaffirmed that pension is a legal right, not a matter of grace, and no authority can deprive an employee of earned benefits without adhering to due process.
Implications
This judgment is a crucial reaffirmation of the principle of natural justice in service law. It establishes that:
- Unilateral correction of service records is void without notice or inquiry.
- Pensionary entitlements form a vested right, and administrative errors cannot curtail them.
- Educational managements and officers must act within jurisdiction, respecting verified records.
- Courts will intervene under Article 227 to prevent bureaucratic injustice, especially when retiral benefits are at stake.
This decision provides relief to numerous retired teachers facing arbitrary changes to service records across Maharashtra.
