Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Jay Pal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's date of birth dispute and recovery order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. court's analysis on evidentiary weight of date of birth records. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. principle against recovery of salary for mistaken employment. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 4. precedent on recovery of salary in cases of mistaken employment. (Para 19 , 20 , 22) |
| 5. final order regarding pension and recovery quashing. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
1. This writ petition is directed against an order of the Superintendent of Police, Shamli dated 08.07.2016, holding that the petitioner’s date of birth was 13.06.1954 and not 13.06.1955 and that, therefore, he had served an extra year beyond his age of superannuation. The order on this premise directs recovery of a year’s salary that the petitioner had drawn beyond his date of superannuation reckoned on the basis of his date of birth being 13.04.1954.
2. Apart from questioning the recovery, the petitioner also prays that a mandamus be granted, ordering the respondents to pay the petitioner his provident fund, commuted value of pension, leave encashment and further to pay his final pension instead of a provisional pension. The petitioner also claims a
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.
Service - Retirement benefits - Not entitled for - Petitioner appears to be not bona-fide and a wrong doer cannot claim the privilege of his own wrongful conduct and it will be wholly unjustified one....
Date of birth declared at service entry is conclusive unless corrected within two years; belated claims with certificates obtained just before superannuation after nearly 20 years not permissible.
Tampering with age records to gain employment advantage invalidates claims to continued service; retirement at correct age does not breach natural justice.
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 date of birth recorded in the H.S.L.C.E. Certificate is authoritative for retirement purposes, and recovery of excess salary for overstaying must consider shared negligence.
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
