Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. B. Misra, J.
PRABHU LAL, ASSISTANT TEACHER, JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT BASIC EDUCATION OFFICER, DIRECTOR OF BASIC EDUCATION, STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 14020 Of 1990
Decided On : 12/05/2003
Date of Birth - Retirement - U. P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1931 - Rule 29 - Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution - (2003) 1 UPLBEC-280, Adhishashi Abhiyanta, Electricity Board, Rihand and Hydel Civil Div. U. P. State Electricity Board, Allahabad and Anr. v. Shitla Prasad and Anr. - Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. Dinabandhu Majumdar, AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1499 : 1995 (4) SCC 172 - State of Orissa and Ors. v. Ramnath Patnaik, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2452 - Hindustan Lever Limited v. S. M. Jadhav and Anr., 2001 (2) E. S. C. 338 (SC.) : air 2001 SC 1665 - General Manager, Bhawani Cooking Coal Limited, West Bengal v. Shib Kumar dushad and Ors., (2000) 8 SCC 696 - State of Orissa v. Dr. Miss Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269 - Bhupendra Nath Chatterjee v. State of Bihar AIR 1977 SC 746 - Secretary cum Commissioner, Home department v. R. Kirubakaram AIR 1993 SC 2647 : 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155 - Union of India v. Kantilal Hematram pandiya (1995) 3 SCC 17 : AIR 1995 SC 1349 - Union of India v. Ram Suia Sharma 16 { (1996) 7 SCC 421} - Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Bhagaban V. Lahane AIR 1997 SC 1986 - Director of Technical Education v. Smt. K. Sitadevi AIR 1991 SC 308 : 1991 Supp (2) SCC 387 - State of T. N. v. T. V. Venugopalan (1994) 6 SCC 302 - Collector of Madras v. Rajamanickram (1995) 2 SCC 98 - Sheo Nandan Singh v. Union of India (1996) 1 SCC 593 - State of Orrisa v. Ramnath Patnaik AIR 1997 SC 2452 : (1997) 5 SCC 181 - Ehtesham Ullah Khan v. Central Administrative Tribunal, allahabad and Ors. - R. S. Mehrotra v. Central Government Industrial tribunal, 1991 (63) FLR 76 - Maharashtra State Electricity Board v. Sakharam Sitararn Shinde, 1996 (72) FLR 562 - Nagar Mahapalika, Bareilly v. Labour Court, Bareilly and Anr., 1995 (71) FLR 950 - State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Mohan Lal Sharma, JT (2002) 10 SC 207 - State of U. P. and Ors. v. Smt. Gulaichi - Executive Engineer, Bhadrak (R and B) Division, Orissa and Ors. v. Rangadhar Mallik (1993 Supp (1) SCC 763)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Head Master, challenged his retirement order based on his date of birth. The respondents argued that the date of birth recorded in the service book was correct and that the petitioner had no right to continue in service beyond the superannuation age.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's date of birth recorded in the service book was the basis for his retirement. The court also noted various legal precedents related to the correction of date of birth in service records and the implications of raising such disputes near the time of superannuation.
Issues: The main issue was the correctness of the petitioner's recorded date of birth and the implications of challenging it near the time of superannuation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that correction of date of birth in service records should not be entertained at a belated stage, especially near the time of superannuation. The court also highlighted the need for irrefutable proof to support claims for correction of date of birth.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's claim, citing the recorded date of birth in the service book as the basis for retirement and emphasizing the need for timely and conclusive evidence to support claims for correction of date of birth.
( 1 ) HEARD Sri H. N. Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. C. Chaturvedi, Addl. Chief standing counsel along with Sri Raj Kumar learned Standing counsel. In this petition prayer has been made to quash the impugned order dated 28th/29th of March, 1990 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1. Further prayer has been made for commanding the respondents not to superannuate the petitioner from the post of Head master of before 30th June, 1991 and to pay him salary and other emoluments upto 30th June, 1991.
( 2 ) IT appears that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in Primary School, mohaila Chaudhriana, Saharanpur in the year 1953 and later on was promoted as Head Master in the same school on 1. 1. 1963. According to the petitioner his date of birth is 1. 7. 1930 and after completing sixty years of age petitioner was retired by the order dated 1. 7. 1990, which was challenged by way of this writ petition. This court by the order dated 30. 5. 1990 indicated that until further orders of this Court, operation of the order dated 28/29. 3. 90 is stayed. According to the petitioner passing order of superannuation w. e. f. 30th June, 1991 is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution as he was to attend 60 years on 31st July, 1990, therefore, he will continue upto 30th June, 1991 that is till the completing of the next academic session in view of the Rule 29 of the U. P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1931, which reads as below
"rule 29-Age of Superannuation: - Every teacher shall retire from service in the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years: provided that a teacher Who retires during an academic session (July 1 to June 30) shall continue to work till the end of the academic sessions that is, June 30 and such period of service will be deemed as extended period of employment. "
( 3 ) ACCORDING to the Standing counsel keeping in view the date of birth entered into in the service book as 1. 7. 30 the petitioner had completed 60 years on 30th June, 1990, therefore, he was rightly retired w. e. f. 30th June, 1990 and the benefit of Rule 29 mentioned as above cannot be given to the petitioner and by retiring a person after completing the age of superannuation could never be said to be violating provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution According to the respondents the petitioner has no right to continue in service as the date of birth entered into the service book was duly verified by the competent authority and is taken correct date of birth of the petitioner. According to the respondents the impugned order is not to be interfered with.
( 4 ) IN ( (2003) 1 UPLBEC-280 Bimlesh Sharma v. Electricity Board, Office of Chief Engineer. U. P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad. Moradabad and Ors. where date of birth entered in the service book was to be changed by the wife of the deceased employee when the husband of the writ petitioner had died after retirement by disputing the change of date of birth. This court has held disputed question of fact cannot be investigated in the writ petition and the date of birth once entered in the service book of the petitioner under U. P. Recruitment to service (Determination of Date of birth) Rules, 1974, was treated to be correct supported by the relevant documents and supporting entries in the service book and the change of the date of birth disputing the same on the basis of fitness certificate were not treated to be relevant proof of age and such controversy and disputed question of fact could not be resolved by investigating the authenticity of the documents relied upon by the parties concerned in the writ proceedings.
( 5 ) IN the case of Adhishashi Abhiyanta, Electricity Board, Rihand and Hydel Civil Div. U. P. State Electricity Board, Allahabad and Anr. v. Shitla Prasad and Anr. , Special Appeal No. 383 of 1989, decided on 17. 9. 1993, a Division Bench of this Cour
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
