16 March,2018 10:34 AM IST | Mumbai | Rahul Mahajani
Bharat Pardeshi. Pic/Sayyed Sameer Abedi
The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) has asked the state government to take a police inspector who was forced to retire in 2015, due to an error in his birth record, back in service. MAT passed the order on Bharat Pardeshi recently, and the file has been put forth before the Home department.
Pardeshi, who can consider himself reinstated owing to the MAT order, has just a few months left before he legitimately retires this June, and is awaiting his new posting from the department. Once reinstated, the government is supposed to pay him full salary since 2015 till date. Pardeshi, who has worked in several police stations in the eastern suburbs, including Trombay and Kurla, was posted in Chembur at the time of his retirement.
Spotting the error
The inspector had moved the MAT after finding out that his date of birth in the state's records was incorrect - his birth year had been noted down as 1957 instead of the actual 1960, forcing him to leave the force three years sooner. He had joined the force in 1979 as a constable with the Nashik police, and subsequently, cleared the departmental exam, becoming a sub-inspector.
ALSO READ
Here are the key winners of the Maharashtra Assembly Elections 2024
Mercury drops below 20 in Mumbai, minimum temp recorded at 19.1 degrees Celsius
Maharashtra election results are unexpected and incomprehensible: Uddhav
Accept people's mandate, says Zeeshan Siddique after loosing fron Bandra East
Congress leader Prithviraj Chavan loses Karad (South) seat by 39,355 votes
It was around 2012 that he realised that his date of birth in the records was June 1, 1957, instead of June 22, 1960. Pardeshi asked the government, on two occasions, to rectify the error, but it wasn't done. "We filed a case before the MAT and provided relevant documents to support our case," said Pardeshi's advocate K R Jagdale.
The two sides
The government pointed out that as per service rules, Pardeshi should have brought up the error within five years of joining. Jagdale, however, said there was overwriting in the column bearing date of birth, and the department itself hadn't bothered to verify the date.