Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Jagbeer Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others - Respondents
Writ - A No. 11079 of 2024
Decided On : 10-02-2025
(A) Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974 - Rules 2 and 3 - Writ petition against retirement order - Petitioner’s date of birth recorded as 20.02.1967 was altered to 01.09.1964 based on a notarial affidavit - Court held that the original date of birth must prevail as per Rules 2 and 3, which deem the date in the service book as correct for all purposes. (Paras 16-18)
(B) Employment of minors - The court noted that employment of minors does not render the appointment void, but years of service prior to majority may be discounted for certain purposes. (Paras 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged retirement orders citing his date of birth as 20.02.1967, supported by school certificates, while the respondents argued for an altered date based on an affidavit.
Findings of Court:
The original date of birth in the service book was confirmed as valid, and the alteration was deemed illegal.
Issues: The primary issue was the validity of the petitioner’s date of birth in service records and the implications of the alteration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the date of birth in the service book at the time of entry is deemed correct, overriding any other evidence.
Result: Petition allowed; orders quashed and reinstatement ordered.
JUDGMENT :
J.J. MUNIR, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the office memo dated 13.05.2024 and the order dated 03.07.2024, directing the petitioner’s retirement on 31.08.2024, upon attaining the age of superannuation. Both these orders have been made by the Works Manager, Irrigation Workshop Division, Meerut.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition are these :
It is not clear how the petitioner’s appointment in the respondents’ Establishment is connected to his father’s death in a road accident, as neither the petitioner asserts the fact that his father was employed with the respondents and that he was appointed on compassionate grounds, nor does his letter of appointment dated 12.04.1983 issued by the Works Manager, Irrigation Division, Meerut, shows that explicitly. There is no issue about the fact that the petitioner was indeed appointed on 12.04.1983 in the respondent’s Establishment as an unskilled labourer. Therefore, we proceed on the edifice of the fact that the petitioner was appointed in the respondents’ Establishment on 12.04.1983, as aforesaid.
3. Apparently, the petitioner continued in service and was serving as a Mechanic Grade-I in the Establishment of the Works Manager, respondent No. 3, when he was served with a notice of retirement dated 13.05.2024, saying that he would retire from service on 31.08.2024, upon attaining the age of superannuation, to wit, 60 years. The petitioner appears to have represented the matter before the Works Manager with a case that his date of birth was 20.02.1967, entitling him to continue in service until 28.02.2027. This application was rejected by the order dated 03.07.2024 made by the Works Manager, for reasons indicated, that we would presently detail.
4. It is the petitioner’s case that he passed his Class VIII examination in the year 1982 from the Shri Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Vidyalaya, Salarpur, Meerut and according to the school-leaving certificate issued by the Institution aforesaid, the petitioner’s date of birth is 20.02.1967. He appeared for his high-school examination in the year 1985, but failed. There is a high-school marksheet that the petitioner has brought on record, issued by the Uttar Pradesh Board of High School and Intermediate Education, which shows the petitioner’s date of birth to be 20.02.1967. The petitioner also cites a document of original probative value about his age. It is a certificate issued by some functionary in the Irrigation Workshop Division, Meerut, called the Mukhya Samaypal. A photostat copy of the document is annexed as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition. This document too shows the petitioner’s date of birth to be 20.02.1967, the date of appointment as 01.04.1983 and his date of retirement as 31.03.2025.
5. The petitioner appears to have further represented his cause through a representation dated Nil, again addressed to the Works Manager, Irrigation Workshop Division, Meerut, seeking a restoration of his date of birth in his service records as 20.02.1967 instead of 01.09.1964.
6. This representation was still pending, when the petitioner, realising the futility of the remedy, moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution on 24.07.2024, a little over a month ahead of his scheduled retirement, in terms of the orders impugned. This petition came up for admission on 05.08.2024, when this Court summoned the petitioner’s service book in original from the custody of the Works Manager, Irrigation Workshop Division, Meerut and the Assistant Engineer-II, Irrigation Workshop Division, Meerut, posting the matter on 08.08.2024. On 08.08.2024, a notice of motion was issued, after a perusal of the petitioner’s service book, by a very detailed order, asking the Works Manager and the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Workshop Circle, Lucknow to show cause in the matter. On 14.08.2024, two personal affidavits were filed, one by the Works Manager, respondent No. 3 and the other, by the Superintending Engineer, respondent No. 2. The affidavit
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 upheld that recorded dates of birth in service books cannot be altered at the end of an employee's service, emphasizing adherence to procedural timelines.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the date of birth recorded at the time of entry into government service for an illiterate employee shall be deemed to be the correct date of b....
Tampering with age records to gain employment advantage invalidates claims to continued service; retirement at correct age does not breach natural justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that requests for correction of date of birth at the fag end of a career must be supported by irrefutable proof and evidence of real injustice, and....
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
