Dismissed

Smt. Godhani Devi v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Irrigation at Lucknow, and 2 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2019WRIA/20480/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an order of retirement, the Court examined whether the petitioner's date of birth, recorded in the service book, could be corrected based on a Medical Officer's certificate. The Court held that under the 1974 Rules, the initial entry is sacrosanct and cannot be altered, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Godhani Devi Vs State of U.P. through… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20480 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Godhani Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, Irrigation At Lucknow, And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Lakhan Deobanshi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

¶6

This petition challenges an order dated 18 April 2018 pursuant to which the petitioner has been informed that she will attain the age of superannuation on 31 October 2018 and consequently stand retired from the service of the respondents.

¶7

The petitioner's case is that at the time of her initial entry into service and since she was uneducated, she was sent for examination to the Chief Medical Officer, Fatehpur. According to her, the Chief Medical Officer had drawn up a certificate after due examination of the petitioner on 10 October 1996, clearly stating therein that she appeared to be 35 years old. It is alleged that an incorrect entry was made in the service book and the certificate of the Chief Medical Officer was ignored even though it existed on the record of the respondents.

¶8

The issue itself arises since from the extract of the service book which is appended along with the writ petition, it is evident that the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 11 October 1958. The service book further records the date of birth of the petitioner in numeral form to be 38 years. The case of the petitioner is that if the certificate of the Chief Medical Officer which was obtained and is admitted by the respondents had been given effect to, the correct date of birth could not possibly

¶9

¶10

have been entered as 38 and the correct entry should have been 35. Reliance is further placed on the date of birth as appearing in the Provident Fund passbook issued to the petitioner to contend that this was clearly an error on the part of the respondents and that the petitioner has been wrongly retired in terms of the impugned order.

¶11

Having noticed the submissions which were advanced, this Court had called upon the State respondents to file a further affidavit and indicate whether the certificate of the Chief Medical Officer dated 10 October 1996 was ever produced before the respondents and made part of the service record of the petitioner.

¶12

From the affidavit tendered pursuant to the said order, it is clear that the certificate of the Chief Medical Officer and its existence on the record is not disputed. In paragraph 8, it is averred that the date of birth of the petitioner came to be recorded as 11 October 1958 on the basis of the said certificate. This assertion is ex-facie incorrect since the certificate of the Chief Medical Officer dated 10 October 1996 clearly opined and held that the petitioner was 35 years of age on the date when it was drawn up. This discrepancy is sought to be explained by the State by referring to certain reports which were made part of the record at the time of consideration of the claim of the petitioner for appointment and it is on this basis that it is submitted that the date of birth came to be recorded as 11 October 1958.

¶13

The certificate of the Chief Medical Officer is and does not appear to be in dispute. This Court is essentially called upon to answer whether the reliefs as claimed by the petitioner can be granted bearing in mind the mandatory provisions of the U.P.

¶14

¶15

Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974 . The principal question which arises is whether even if the petitioner be correct that the intial entry in the service record was incorrectly recorded, the same can be corrected at this stage.

¶16

The 1974 Rules which govern the determination of the date of birth of a Government servant as well as the procedure to be followed in case the same is to be amended, makes the following provisions:

¶17

" Determination of correct date of birth or age.- The date of birth of a Government servant as recorded in the certificate of his having passed the High School or equivalent examination at the time of his entry into the Government service or where a Government servant has not passed any such examination as aforesaid or has passed such examination after joining the service, the date of birth or the age recorded in his service book at the time of his entry into the Government service shall be deemed to be his correct date of birth or age, as the case may be, for all purposes in relation of 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 of age in any circumstances whatsoever."

¶18

From a perusal of the Rules extracted hereinabove, it is the entry which stands recorded in the service book at the stage of initial entry which is to be treated as sacrosanct and inviolable. No correction in the entry so made is permitted in law. The 1974 Rules engraft a legal fiction to the effect that the entry made initially “shall be deemed to be” the correct date of birth of the concerned employee.

¶19

¶20

Although the petitioner with reference to page 18 of the paperbook has sought to draw sustenance from certain alleged interpolations made in the service book to submit that the service book was wrongly drawn, this Court finds itself unable to accept this contention since the date of birth of the petitioner stands duly recorded in the service book both in words as well as in numerals.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has additionally asserted that these entries have been made subsequent to the initial recruitment of the petitioner. This contention is noticed only to be rejected since no evidence has been alluded to nor has it been established that the entries in words and numerals did not exist or that they were not entered or recorded at the time of initial recruitment nor are they established to have been made subsequently at any point of time. The 1974 Rules which have been referred to above, unequivocally put in place a deeming fiction with respect to the correctness of the date of birth which stands recorded in the service record.

¶22

Additionally the Court notes that the service record and the entries made therein, are assailed for the first time by the petitioner after receiving the impugned communication. During her long length of service under the respondents, the entry in question was never challenged. Since the 1974 Rules confer finality upon the entries made at the time of the initial induction of the petitioner, the Court finds itself unable to grant any relief.

¶23

The writ petition is consequently dismissed.

¶24

Order Date :- 11.1.2019 LA/-

Smt. Godhani Devi v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Irrigation at Lucknow, and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Godhani Devi v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Irrigation at Lucknow, and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sughar Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Bandhoo Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Umesh Kumar Singh and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Brijendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sanjeev Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Surendra Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others