WP/7465/2025 of MILIND S/O ROOPDAS JANBANDHU Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. SECRETARY, RURAL DEVPT. AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, MUMBAI AND OTHERS on 6 October 2026

Order

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 7465 of 2025 [Milind S/o Roopdas Janbandhu vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj and ors.] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. P. S. Chawhan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S. B. Bissa, A.G.P. for the State/respondent no. 1 Mr. Nisha Gajbhiye(Wasnik), Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3 Mr. Milindkumar Salve, CEO, Z.P., Bhandara(respondent no. 2) through V.C. CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. DATE : 06-10-2026. On 28-9-2026, following order was passed. “Heard.

2. Challenge is to order dated 06.03.2025, by which, request of petitioner to change date of birth was refused.

3. The petitioner invited our attention to the impugned order. The only reason why the request is refused, is that petitioner has not applied or made request to change date of birth within five years from the date of entry in the service. We are informed that petitioner entered in the service on 14.07.2006. He made representation on 12.04.2007, saying that his date of birth is 16.12.1972 and not 24.06.1971. Argument of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 has not considered the representation made in the year 2007.

4. There is no dispute that the representation made by petitioner was received by respondent No.3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has brought to the Court original inward 2026:BHC-NAG:13325-DB

Order

register. She submits that entry of receipt of representation is made, however, the same is made in a different handwriting. She further submits that subsequent page of inward register is blank.

5. We have accordingly made a query with the learned counsel as to whether it is the case of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that the petitioner has manipulated or tampered with the inward register; she answered in the negative.

6. Thus, it is not known as to why respondent Nos.2 and 3 have pointed out to us that there is difference in the ink in the inward register or that the subsequent page of the register is blank. We would expect respondent No.3 to file affidavit on this point.

7. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 then switched our attention to the birth certificate of the petitioner. We, however, pointed out to the counsel that in the impugned order, there is not even reference to the birth certificate. We pointed out to the learned counsel that the only reason on which the petitioner's request is refused is that he has not filed such request within five years in terms of Rule 38 of Maharashtra Civil Services Rules, 1981. In other words, reference to the birth certificate is irrelevant.

8. In these circumstances, let respondent Nos.2 and 3 appear before the Court either physically or through video conference for proper assistance on the points involved.

9. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall communicate the order to respondent Nos.2 and 3 by email as well as WhatsApp.

10. Stand over 06.10.2026.”

2. In

response

to

above

order, respondent no. 2 – Mr. Milindkumar Salve, Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Bhandara appeared through video conferencing and submits that since he has not considered the grievance put forth by the petitioner that he had made similar such application on

Order

12-4-2007, he would withdraw/recall the impugned order and consider the matter afresh. He submits that opportunity of hearing will be given to the petitioner and thereafter fresh order will be passed. The statement is accepted.

3. The impugned order/communication stands withdrawn/recalled.

4. The Chief Executive Officer shall consider the grievance put forth by the petitioner which includes filing alleged representation dated 12-4-2007. The petitioner shall appear before respondent no. 2 – Chief Executive Officer on 12-10-2026 and thereafter as and when called by the respondent no. 2. The decision shall be taken within four weeks thereafter.

5. The petition is disposed of in terms of above. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) wasnik Signed by: Mr. A. Y. Wasnik Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 07/10/2026 10:38:31