Allowed

Ramesh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2023WRIA/8964/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the petitioner's retirement order, holding that the date of birth recorded in his authenticated service book is final. The court directed the respondent to treat the petitioner as in service until May 2022 and pay accrued salary and retirement dues.

What did the court decide?

Quashed retirement order; petitioner restored to service till 31st May 2022; salary arrears and revised post-retirement dues to be paid.

Ramesh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:190622

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8964 of 2019

¶4

Petitioner :- Ramesh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ulajhan Singh Bind,Ranjeet Asthana Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dr. Amar Nath Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ranjeet Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Archana Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and perused the record.

¶7

Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 08.05.2019 whereby he has been made to retire from the post of Beldar on the ground that his date of birth was detected to be 18.01.1959.

¶8

The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner's date of birth in the service record is mentioned as 25.05.1962 and, therefore, if in his service book his date of birth has been recorded as such, he could not have been made to retire in the year 2019.

¶9

This Court in order to verify the facts from the original records had directed the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to produce original service book relating to the petitioner.

¶10

The Additional Chief Standing Counsel has produced the original service book today and it transpires that two service books had been prepared. The earlier service book that was prepared in the year 1993 does not mention his date of birth, however, the first page of the said service book is missing. This service book was prepared while the petitioner was posted under the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Etah and the service Book has been authenticated under his signatures. The second service book seems to have been subsequently prepared in the year 2008 in the same office of the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Etah. This service book records his date of birth as 25.05.1962 under the signatures of the then Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Etah.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel could not place any document by

¶12

which petitioner ever required his date of birth recorded in the service book to be changed. All that is said is that in the papers relating to his appointment, his date of birth was originally recorded to be as 18.01.1959. In support of this contention, learned Standing Counsel has drawn attention of the Court towards regularisation order of the Petitioner dated 26.05.2010 in which name of the petitioner appears at serial no.4 and date of birth recorded as 18.01.1959.

¶13

Admittedly regularisation order is subsequent to the service record and no documents have been produced before this Court which would demonstrate that at the time of his entry in service, the petitioner ever presented his date of birth to be recorded as 18.01.1959. The original records produced before this Court are absolutely silent about the same. It transpires from the original records produced that certain inquiry were made regarding his date of birth in the service book but the authorities have failed to demonstrate as to under which provision of law they sought to retire the petitioner taking his date of birth as January, 1959 whereas in the service book his date of birth was recorded as 25.05.1962. Under the UP Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974, it is clearly provided as under:

¶14

"2. 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 of 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 to 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 or age in any circumstances, whatsoever."

¶15

From the above relevant provisions, it is clear that once the date of birth is recorded originally in the service record, no application shall be entertained to change the same except in cases where employee may submit his Highschool certificate. In such circumstances, once in the service book of the petitioner his date of birth is recorded as 25.05.1962 that shall be taken into account for the purposes like retirement etc. It is a fact that respondents have not changed the date of birth originally recorded in the service book of the petitioner.

¶16

In view of the above, the order dated 08.05.2019, is hereby quashed. Petitioner shall be taken to have continued in service till

¶17

31st May, 2022. He shall be paid entire arrears of salary for period when he was made to retire i.e. from May, 2019 to May, 2022. The post retirement dues, accordingly be assessed and revised and shall be paid to the petitioner. Necessary formalities shall be done within two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

¶18

With the aforesaid directions, writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

¶19

Original records are returned to learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

¶20

Order Date :- 4.10.2023 P Kesari

¶21

Digitally signed by :- PRACHI KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramesh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shilendra Kumar Vs Chief Engineer Adhisthan 6TH Anubhag Sichai Evam Jal Sansadhan Department and 3 Others

Jugendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mithlesh Kumar Soni Vs the State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ashutosh Verma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rita Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vagish Tiwari and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another