Chotelal Vs. Forest Division Officer Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon

Chotelal vs Forest Division Officer Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Feb 13, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1128579

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1128579
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Feb 13, 2014
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Chotelal

Advocate Shri. Vinay Pandey

Respondent

Forest Division Officer Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon

Excerpt

w.p.no.11069/2010(s) 1 (chotelal dubey versus forest division officer and another) 13/02/2014. shri vinay pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. petitioner claims to have been appointed as daily wages employee on 01/08/1984. vide order dated 08/05/2010 the petitioner was retired from service on the ground that he has attained 60 years as his date of birth is 25/06/1950. contending that the date of birth of the petitioner is only 25/06/1954 and is not 25/06/1950 as recorded by the government and placing reliance on a birth certificate annexure p/4 issued by the office of the registrar of birth and death on 09/07/2010, petitioner has filed this writ petition on 09/08/2010 i.e.three months after his retirement. record indicates that based on the entries made in the record by the respondents while the petitioner was appointed in the year 1984, he has been retired treating his date of birth to be 25/06/1950 when the order of retirement annexure p/1 was passed on 08/05/2010, petitioner did not object and it is only after his retirement that vide annexure p/2 dated 25/06/2010 he raised an objection and subsequently obtained a certificate by issuing registered notice through his counsel on w.p.no.11069/2010(s) 2 (chotelal dubey versus forest division officer and another) 23/07/2010, claimed correction based on the certificate obtained the registrar, birth and death has issued on 09/07/2010 i.e.more than two months after his retirement. as the challenge to the date of retirement by the petitioner a daily wager is being made after his retirement or at the there is no record or document available, issued prior to his retirement and time of appointment to show his correct date of birth now no interference based on the documents obtained by the petitioner after his retirement that also when the petitioner is only a daily wager employee and not regular employee working in the establishment is called for. keeping in view of the aforesaid no case for interference is made out,.....

Full Judgment

W.P.No.11069/2010(S) 1 (Chotelal Dubey versus Forest Division Officer and another) 13/02/2014.

Shri Vinay Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Petitioner claims to have been appointed as daily wages employee on 01/08/1984.

Vide order dated 08/05/2010 the petitioner was retired from service on the ground that he has attained 60 years as his date of birth is 25/06/1950.

Contending that the date of birth of the petitioner is only 25/06/1954 and is not 25/06/1950 as recorded by the Government and placing reliance on a birth certificate Annexure P/4 issued by the Office of the Registrar of Birth and Death on 09/07/2010, petitioner has filed this writ petition on 09/08/2010 i.e.three months after his retirement.

Record indicates that based on the entries made in the record by the respondents while the petitioner was appointed in the year 1984, he has been retired treating his date of birth to be 25/06/1950 when the order of retirement Annexure P/1 was passed on 08/05/2010, petitioner did not object and it is only after his retirement that vide Annexure P/2 dated 25/06/2010 he raised an objection and subsequently obtained a certificate by issuing registered notice through his counsel on W.P.No.11069/2010(S) 2 (Chotelal Dubey versus Forest Division Officer and another) 23/07/2010, claimed correction based on the certificate obtained the Registrar, Birth and Death has issued on 09/07/2010 i.e.more than two months after his retirement.

As the challenge to the date of retirement by the petitioner a daily wager is being made after his retirement or at the there is no record or document available, issued prior to his retirement and time of appointment to show his correct date of birth now no interference based on the documents obtained by the petitioner after his retirement that also when the petitioner is only a daily wager employee and not regular employee working in the establishment is called for.

Keeping in view of the aforesaid no case for interference is made out, therefore, petition stands dismissed.

(Rajendra Menon) Judge AKM

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2014 Same Parties Chotelal vs Forest Division Officer Judgement Given By: Hon'b... Same Subject Education