V D CHAVAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition the petitioner Dr. V. D. Chavan has challenged the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on 4th May, 2001, allowing the petition of respondent No. 4 herein, quashing the order of superannuation passed in relation to respondent No. 4 by the State and consequently directing her reinstatement in the post on which she was working prior to 25-5-2001.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present petition are that both, the petitioner in this Court and the respondent No. 4 in this petition are working in the Sir J. J. hospital run by the Government of Maharashtra. The respondent No. 4 is working in a Honarary capacity whereas the petitioner is working as a full time professor of cardiology. The petitioner has admitted that he is next senior most professor to respondent No. 4. The petitioner has also admitted that respondent No. 4 has been reinstated as Director and Professor in the head of the department of cardiology in the J. J. Group of hospitals in obedience of the order of 4-5-2001. He will be made head of the department and director of the cardiology department on superannuation of the respondent No. 4. Factually according to the petitioner he did work as head of the department and on reinstatement of the respondent No. 4, was again put as professor. He therefore, has a right to claim superannuation of the respondent No. 4 in accordance with law.

(3.) THE respondent No. 4 Dr. Pathak while joining the services of the Government of Maharashtra, declared on certain forms as required by the Government Rules and Regulations her date of birth, which was according to her 7th May, 1944. This declaration remained unchallenged for, several years till about 1998 when a complaint was made by some individual informing the Government that the date of birth of Dr. Pathak was 7-5-1940 and not 7-5-1944 as given and recorded by Dr. Pathak. Probably some enquiries were made by the State and holding her date of birth to be 7th May, 1941, she was retired from Government service with effect from 22-12-2000 i. e. the date of the issue of the order of retirement. Admittedly no notice was issued to the respondent No. 4 asking her to show-cause why after accepting the date of birth as 7-4-1941 she be not retired from service, though she was asked earlier to supply additional proof in support of her date of birth.