Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Vidya Sagar – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and others – Respondent
Writ A No.8107 of 2014
Decided on : 14-05-2024
Writ Petition - Retirement and Recovery of Salary - Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974; Article 23 of the Constitution of India - The court examined the legality of the retirement order based on the petitioner's date of birth, which was contested. It highlighted the importance of accurate record-keeping and the implications of potential forgery. The court ultimately ruled against the recovery of excess salary paid, citing principles of equity and the prohibition of forced labor under Article 23, emphasizing that recovery from the deceased's estate would be inequitable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Vidya Sagar, was directed to retire based on a date of birth of 21.01.1950, which he contested, claiming a date of birth of 21.01.1955. Following a complaint from his brother alleging forgery, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari ordered his retirement and recovery of excess salary paid. The petitioner passed away during the proceedings, leading to his widow seeking to continue the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's actual date of birth was indeed 21.01.1950, as per the Board's records. However, it noted that the circumstances surrounding the discrepancy in the date of birth on the High School certificate were unclear, and it could not definitively conclude that fraud had occurred. The court emphasized the need for equitable treatment regarding salary recovery.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to continue in service based on the date of birth recorded in his High School certificate, and whether the recovery of excess salary paid to him could be enforced against his estate after his death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while the petitioner had served beyond his superannuation age based on incorrect records, the recovery of salary from his estate would be inequitable and contrary to the principles of justice, particularly under Article 23 of the Constitution, which prohibits forced labor.
Final Decision: The court quashed the recovery order against the petitioner and directed that his widow be entitled to his post-retirement benefits, calculated based on the correct date of birth, without any recovery of excess salary paid.
JUDGMENT :
J.J. Munir, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Firozabad dated 16.12.2013, directing inter alia that the petitioner, the Headmaster of Junior High School, Bhitari, Block Narkhi, District Firozabad, be relieved of his duties forthwith having superannuated, a First Information Report lodged against him and the payment of his retiral dues stopped until salary paid to him in excess beyond the age of his superannuation is recovered.
2. On 10.02.2014, when this petition came up for admission, this Court, while issuing a notice of motion to the other side, passed an interim order in the following terms:
Sri Radha Kant Ojha very fairly requests that for the time being subject to the outcome of this writ petition the petitioner may at least be allowed provisional pension taking his date of retirement to be 30.6.2012 for his livelihood. Respondents do not have any objection to this proposal. It is further directed that treating the date of retirement of the petitioner to be 30.6.2012, as determined by the respondents themselves in the impugned order, the petitioner will be entitled to provisional pension treating 30.6.2012 to be his date of retirement, which will however be subject to final outcome of the writ petition.”
3. A counter affidavit dated 06.05.2014 was filed on behalf of respondent No.4, to which the petitioner filed a rejoinder on 05.05.2016.
4. Pending the writ petition, the sole petitioner, Vidya Sagar passed away on 28.08.2023. An application for substitution was made on behalf of his widow, Smt. Bitto Devi. It was allowed vide order 23.11.2023 and she was brought on record as petitioner No.1/1. This petition was admitted to hearing on 23.11.2023 as well, which proceeded forthwith. During hearing on 23.11.2023, this Court thought it fit to direct the Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Prayagraj to file an affidavit, certifying the date of birth of Vidya Sagar son of Ram Sahay, the original petitioner, the year and the college that he had appeared from in the Board Examination and the roll number assigned to him, which were mentioned in the order, directing the Secretary. The Secretary was also cautioned about the fact that the original records may be required to be produced in Court and the affidavit, therefore, that he would file, must indicate the particulars of the records that he has relied upon. The matter was, accordingly, adjourned for further hearing to 30.11.2023. On 30.11.2023, an affidavit along with an application to accept it on record was filed on behalf of the Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Prayagraj. The tabulation chart in original was produced on behalf of the Uttar Pradesh Board of High School and Intermediate Education (for short, 'the Board') by Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, relating to the High School Examination of the year 1968 conducted by the Board. This Court went through the tabulation chart and recorded in our order of 30.11.2023 that at Sr. No. R/367/12, the roll number mentioned is 104055 and the name of the candidate is Vidya Sagar. His date of birth entered there is 21.01.1950 and his father's name is Ram Sahay. It is further recorded in our order of 30.11.2023 that upon a comparison with the petitioner's records, it is evident that the original tabulation chart produced by the Board relates to the petitioner and the particulars are referable to him. The affidavit too carries a copy of the tabulation chart, which was accepted on record. The hearing concluded on 30.11.2023 and judgment was reserved.
5. Heard Mr. Sujeet Kumar Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing o
The court established that recovery of salary from an employee's estate after their death, particularly in cases of disputed records, must consider principles of equity and the prohibition of forced ....
An employee cannot be denied remuneration for work performed due to a clerical error regarding the date of birth, as it constitutes unconstitutional begar under Article 23 of the Constitution.
The court held that the date of birth in a matriculation certificate is authoritative over an affidavit, and manipulative actions for personal gain constitute fraud.
The original date of birth recorded in a government employee's service book is deemed correct for all purposes, overriding any subsequent alterations.
The court established that official records from recognized authorities, such as SEBA, are determinative in employment matters regarding age and retirement, and discrepancies in personal documentatio....
In exercise of extra-ordinary powers conferred by under Article 226 of Constitution of India, Court loathe in interfering with matters pertaining to change of date of birth.
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
