The main legal point established is that the date of birth mentioned in the High School Certificate should be considered final for retirement purposes, as per the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974.

RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. The petitioner entered into service of erstwhile U.P. Electrcity Board in the year 1969(now U.P. Power Corporation limited). At the time of appointment the service book of the petitioner was prepared in which the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 4.1.1947. Accordingly he was given notice dated 18.3.2004 that he would retire on 31.1.2006 on the basis of date of birth as recorded in the aforesaid service book which has been signed by the petitioner on the first page.

3. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 18.3.2004 on the ground that his date of birth has wrongly been recorded in the service book and that his correct date of birth has been mentioned as 4.1.1948 in the High School Certificate, hence he may be retired on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. on 31.1.2006.

4. The counsel for the petitioner has relie upon Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974 as adopted for application in U.P.S.E.B. Vide B.O. No. 2611-G.M:/SEB-II.I-28 GM/75 dated June 20, 1975. These Rules have been framed in exercise of the powers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and has been published by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under the provisions of Clause (3)of Article 309 of the Constitution vide Notification No. 41/2/69- Niyukti (4), dated May 28, 1974. The relevant clauses for the purpose of deciding controversy are as under-

(2) The date of birth of a Government servant as recorded in the certificate of his having passed the High School or equivalent examination, or where a Government servant has not passed any such examination as aforesaid, the date of birth or the age recorded in his service book, at the time of his entry into Government service, shall be deemed to be his correct date of birth or age as the case may be, for all purposes in relation to his service, including eligibility for promotion, superannuation premature retirement or retirement benefits, and no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of such date or age in any circumstances whatsoever.

(3) These rules shall have effect, notwithstanding anything contrary contained in the relevant service rules or orders.

5. The counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner never objected to the date of birth as recorded in the service book and for the first time an objection was raised by him on 15.3.2004 i.e. at the fag end of his service. He further submits that service book of an employee is a basic service record and the date of birth mentioned therein should be taken as authentic date of birth and unless the entry in the service record is corrected in accordance with date of birth subsequently claimed by the employee, the retirement of the said employee-has to follow in accordance with the date of birth as recorded in the service book. It is urged that correction of date of birth in the service book can not be permitted just in a routine manner at the fag end of service. The counsel for the respondents submits that merely because different date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate does not automatically entitle the employee for change date of birth recorded in the service record and that the employee has to retire on the basis of the date of birth recorded in his service book. He further urged that principle of estoppel would be applicable against the person seeking the change in the recorded date of birth at the fag end of the service. In this regard reliance has been placed by the counsel for the respondents upon Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh, AIR 1993 SC 1367 : (1993) 2 SCC 162 and upon paragraphs 25 and 26 of the judgment in the case of Union of India v. C. Rama Swamy and Ors. AIR 1995 SG 2055. The counsel for the respondents has further placed reliance upon AIR 2003 SCVV 3775 State of U.P. and Ors. v. Gulaichi and Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Dinabandhu M