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.

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 arrears of pension due on account of regular pension together with interest.

3. The petitioner retired as a Sub-Inspector (Special Category) from the State Police upon attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2015. He was last posted at Police Station Jhinjhana, District Shamli. He was a Group-C employee. After retirement, the petitioner was sanctioned a provisional pension, paid his gratuity and group insurance, but not the provident fund, commuted pension, leave encashment and final pension.

4. After the petitioner’s retirement, a preliminary inquiry was held into his conduct with regard to the interpolation of his date of birth in the character roll. Based on the preliminary inquiry, he was issued with a show cause notice dated 29.03.2016, saying why salary for one year that he served beyond his age of superannuation be not recovered. It is said in the show cause notice that after his retirement on 30.06.2015, upon a perusal of his service records, it was found that his date of birth in the service record had been changed to 13.06.1955 in place of 13.06.1954. The petitioner was required to submit his explanation to the show cause within fifteen days. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 15.04.2016 before the Superintendent of Police, Shamli. He denied the allegations and categorically said that his date of birth was 13.06.1955. He said that there is no interpolation done by the petitioner in the character roll. It was asserted in his answer to the show cause that in his High School certificate, the petitioner’s date of birth is clearly recorded as 13.06.1955, which is his correct and genuine date of birth. The petitioner enclosed a photostat copy of his High School Certificate along with his reply. He further said that he would produce the original High School Certificate issued by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Allahabad (for short, ‘the Board’) before the Superintendent of Police.

5. The petitioner’s case is that he was appointed as a Constable and his appointment has been made on the basis of his High School Marksheet and Certificate earned from the Board. The petitioner’s High School Certificate as well as the Marksheet clearly show his date of birth as 13.06.1955. The petitioner passed his High School examination in the year 1973 conducted by the Board with Roll No.624710.

6. The Superintendent of Police, Shamli proceeded to reject the petitioner’s explanation to the show cause and, holding his date of birth to be 13.06.1954, directed recovery of salary from the petitioner for the period of one year that he had served extra on account of his incorrect date of birth, to wit, 30.06.1955, which the Superintendent of Police says was interpolated in the service records by scoring out the earlier