- (1.)Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 24th June, 2013 passed by learned District Judge-1, Bhandara, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2010 whereby the Judgment and Decree dated 8th April, 2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Lakhni, in Regular Civil Suit No. 61 of 2009 has been confirmed, the present Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant who is an employee/Deputy Engineer working with Nashik Municipal Corporation, Nashik. The matter came up before me since an application for early hearing, namely Civil Application (CAS) No. 374 of 2014 has been moved by the appellant. Since the matter relates to the correction of Date of Birth of the employee in service who is to retire on 31st July, 2014, on the basis of the alleged incorrect date of birth, I have decided to take up the Second Appeal for final disposal and accordingly the counsel for parties were heard.
(2.)The following Substantial Questions of Law arise in the present Second Appeal:--
(1) Whether the case of the appellant is covered by amended Rule 38(2)(f) which was amended by Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Rules, 2008 to put restriction for the employees in applying for change of date of birth beyond the period of five years from the date of entry in the service book ...No.

(2) Whether the Dakhal Kharij Register of Zilla Parishad School in respect of the appellant (Exh.20) duly proved by bringing original register before the Court would be a strong documentary evidence with strong probative value for holding his date of birth as 7-2-1959 instead of 23-7-1956 ....Yes.

(3.)In support of the appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the wrong date of birth namely 23-7-1956 was recorded in his service book. According to him, no application for correction of date of birth after the period of five years from the date of entry in the service book was made. But then the counsel argued that he had applied on 20-11-2006 to his employer for correction of his date of birth as 7-2-1959 in place of 23-7-1956 and the basic evidence about entry in the Dakhal Kharij Register that was made on 1-12-1967 i.e. entry in the Zilla Parishad School was produced at Exh.20 after verification from the original Dakhal Kharij Register was proved by the concerned employee of the Zilla Parishad. The counsel then argued that the Courts below, however, applied the amended rule which came into effect from 24-12-2008 but the application made by the appellant was prior to the amendment and hence his case would not be covered by the amended rule.