Dismissed

Gyanmati v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2024SPLA/618/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the special appeal against the Single Judge's refusal to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court held that rectifying the date of birth at the fag end of a career is not permissible, relying on the principle that delay of two decades makes the application fatal.

What did the court decide?

None. The special appeal was dismissed with no order as to cost.

Gyanmati vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:118923-DB

¶2

Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 618 of 2024 Appellant :- Gyanmati Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Raman Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Raman Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant-respondent and Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the staterespondents.

¶5

Present intra-court appeal is preferred questioning the validity of the judgment and order dated 15-04-2024 passed in Writ-A No. 5183 of 2024 (Gyanmati Vs. State of U.P. and others) . For ready reference, the order dated 15-04-2024 is extracted as under:-

¶6

"The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition relates to his retirement on 31.12.2023 on the basis of her date of birth as recorded in service book and in the other official records.

¶7

It appears that in the official records, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 1.1.1964.

¶8

The Standing Counsel has obtained instructions and has handed over a copy of the same to the Court which is taken on record. Certain official records of the petitioner have also been attached with the instructions and a perusal of the same shows that in her application form, the petitioner had disclosed her date of birth as 1.1.1964. The said entry is also maintained in other official records. The date of birth of the petitioner cannot be corrected at the fag end of her service.

¶9

The petition lacks merit and is dismissed."

¶10

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, Gyanmati, a Home Guard from Basti district, claims her documented date of birth is 01.01.1974 as per her Aadhar card, PAN card, and educational certificates. However, Sri Ram Charan, the Additional District Commandant, Homeguard, refuses to assign her duties, asserting her date of birth is 01-01-1964, thereby prematurely ending her service. This action, which Gyanmati claims is deliberate harassment, has left her without a means of livelihood. Despite submitting multiple applications to the District Magistrate and the District Homeguard Commandant on 13.02.2024, no resolution has been provided.

¶11

The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction with a grievance that in official record the date of birth was incorrectly mentioned as 01-01-1964 in place of 01-011974. The learned Single Judge had directed the learned Standing Counsel to seek

¶12

instructions in the matter and before the learned Single Judge, detailed instructions had been placed and consequently on the basis of the date of birth which was recorded in certain official records, it was found that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 01-01-1964. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge had refused to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶13

On 05-07-2024, while entertaining the instant appeal, we have directed Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the staterespondents to place instructions, which were placed before the learned Single Judge. The same has been produced before this Court. We have also peruse the record.

¶14

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel while placing the instructions submits that in the service record the date of birth of the applicant was endorsed as 01-01-1964 and details were also mentioned in NIC software wherein she herself certified her date of birth as 01-01-1964.

¶15

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has further placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited Vs. T.P. Nataraja and Others in Civil Appeal No.5720 of 2021 decided on 21.09.2021, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph 12 as under:-

¶16

"Be that as it may, in our opinion, the delay of over two decades in applying for the correction of date of birth is ex facie fatal to the case of the respondent, notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific rule or order, framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application could be filed. It is trite that even in such a situation such an application should be filed which can be held to be reasonable. The application filed by the respondent 25 years after his induction into service, by no standards, can be held to be reasonable, more so when not a feeble attempt was made to explain the said delay. There is also no substance in the plea of the respondent that since Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code does not prescribe the time-limit within which an application is to be filed, the appellants were duty-bound to correct the clerical error in recording of his date of birth in the service book."

¶17

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is well settled law that at the fag end of the career, no rectification in the date of birth is permissible. We do not find any good ground to entertain the instant appeal.

¶18

The appeal fails, and is, accordingly dismissed with no order as to the cost.

¶19

Order Date :- 25.7.2024/pks

¶20

Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gyanmati v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gyanmati v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravis Babu and 4 Others vs State of Up and 2 Others

Committee of Management Sri Surya Narayan Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya vs Avneesh Kumar Rai and 2 Others

Srichandra Prajapati vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Alok Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt Priyanka Dubey vs State of Up and 2 Others

Mr Madhav Saran Agarwal vs State of Up and 2 Others