Dismissed

Gur Sharan @ Gursaran Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homeguards U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 May 2024/3565/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge HC dismissed a writ petition challenging rejection of a claim for continued service. The Court found manipulation in the petitioner's birth date recorded in his marks sheet and held that the date in the service record prevails.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner held not entitled to benefit of Government order dated 04.10.2023.

Gur Sharan @ Gursaran Lal Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38940

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3565 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Gur Sharan @ Gursaran Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homeguards U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

Under challenge is the order dated 17.02.2024 passed by the Director General/Commandant General Homeguard, Lucknow a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition whereby the claim of the petitioner for continuing in service on the basis of the Government order dated 04.10.2023 has been rejected.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that his date of birth as per junior high school marks sheet is 01.01.1968 and thus despite the petitioner having been retired in the year 2020 on the basis of his date of birth recorded in the service record as 02.01.1960, he is entitled to continue in service as per the date of birth of 01.01.1968 and as persons similarly circumstanced have already given the benefit of the aforesaid Government order.

¶9

The Court vide order dated 07.05.2024 had required the learned Standing counsel to seek instructions in the matter.

¶10

Today, learned Standing counsel on the basis of instructions sent by District Commandant Homeguard, Bahraich dated 21.05.2024 informs that (a) junior high school marks sheet of the petitioner has been verified wherein it has been indicated that the date of birth of "01.01.1968" has been over written (b) that the date of birth recorded of the petitioner in the service record as per the xerox copy produced in Court is 02.01.1960 as per column no. 10 and thus the petitioner cannot be continued beyond the date of superannuation.

¶11

Responding to that, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the petitioner is having junior high school marks sheet indicating his date of birth as 01.01.1968 consequently, he can be given the benefit of the Government order dated 04.10.2023.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties and perused the records it emerges that as per the service record, the date of birth of the petitioner is 02.01.1960. The junior high school mark sheet has been verified and it has specifically been indicated that there is a manipulation in the date of birth of the petitioner which incidentally records the date of birth of the petitioner as 01.01.1968.

¶13

Considering the aforesaid more particularly when in the service record, the date of birth of the petitioner is 02.01.1960 and there is a manipulation in the date of birth indicated in the marks sheet of the petitioner consequently, the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of the Government order dated 04.10.2023.

¶14

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 22.5.2024/Pachhere/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gur Sharan @ Gursaran Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homeguards U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gur Sharan @ Gursaran Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homeguards U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Maheshwar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Rural Development Lucknow andORS.

Dr. Jagpal Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Sri Prakash Narain Nigam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Food Safety and Drug Administration Lko. and 2 Others

Shiv Raj Pathak S/O Late Ram Sagar Vs State of U.P. through Secy. Deptt. Minor Irrigation Lko. and O

Tulsiram Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj, Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Pramod Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Cooperative, Lko. and Others