Madhuri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39293

Court No. - 5

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6973 of 2025 Petitioner :- Madhuri Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Sharma

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sriniwas Bajpai

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 & 2 and Shri Sriniwas Bajpai, learned counsel for the respondents no. 3 & 4.

¶7

By means of the instant writ petition the petitioner seeks quashing of retirement notice dated 24.03.2025 issued by respondent no. 4, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner has been informed that she is going to retire on 30.06.2025 on the basis of date of birth recorded 26.06.1965.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner entered into service in the year 1993 (however as per learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 3 and 4 her date of entry is 03.02.1992). However, the entry of the petitioner in service may have no concern. Her date of birth as per Permanent Account Number (PAN Card) issued by the Government of India indicated is 06.04.1970 while as per Aadhar card her age as on 01.01.1995 is said to be 25 years.

¶9

Placing reliance on both the documents the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the date of birth of the petitioner would be 06.04.1970 and thus the respondents have patently erred in issuing the impugned order informing the petitioner that she is going to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2025 rather she should be retired in the year 2030 treating her date of birth as 06.04.1970.

¶10

The further argument is that as per the aforesaid documents i.e. pan card and aadhar card the petitioner should be allowed to continue on the basis of corrected date of birth i.e. 06.04.1970.

¶11

Upon the matter being taken up on 27.06.2025, this Court had required learned counsel appearing for the Nagar Palika Parishad to produce original service records of the petitioner. On the basis of the documents produced by Shri Bajpai earlier there appeared to be a subsequent insertion in the date of birth as 26.06.1965 although no finding was given by this Court at that stage. In pursuance Shri Bajpai produced original service records pertaining to the petitioner which has been examined by the Court.

¶12

The original service records indicate that the date of birth of the petitioner both in words and in numerals is recorded as 26.06.1965. As per observations of this Court in the order dated 27.06.2025 the incongruity appears to be a different ink having been used while recording the date of birth as "30 वरर (1965)". A perusal of service book also indicate that the service book has got the health certificate affixed on the back of the cover page which is dated 26.06.1995. The health certificate has been signed by Senior City Health Officer, Sitapur in green ink. The certificate indicating the date also indicates in numerals in green ink as "30 वरर" and as per the statement of the petitioner and after examining her also, the said officer has recorded the age of the petitioner as "30 वरर". The said entries have been made in green ink. The service book has also been signed by the said officer on 26.06.1995 in green ink. Thus, the use of green ink appears to have created some controversy but when the said green ink and the entries recorded pertaining to date of birth of petitioner are seen in the context of health certificate issued by

¶13

the officer concerned it is thus emerges that there is no incongruity in recording of the said date of birth as '30 years' on 26.06.1995 which would correlate to the year of birth as 1965.

¶14

The mere fact that while issuing of the the PAN and Aadhar some other date of birth may have got recorded by the petitioner the same would not resile from the date of birth that has been recorded in the service record.

¶15

In view of the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out.

¶16

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶17

Service records are returned back to Shri Sriniwas Bajpai, learned counsel for the respondents no. 3 & 4.

¶18

Order Date :- 10.7.2025

¶19

J. K. Dinkar

¶20

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Madhuri v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhuri v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ramendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Pher Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development Vidhan Sabha Marg Lko. and 3 Others

Chhote Lal Kantak and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and 5 Others

Mahendra Singh Vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru. Chairman Lko. and 3 Others

Puneet Kumar Gautam Vs King George Medical University U.P. Lko. Thru. Vice Chancellor and 3 Others

Kamal Kishore Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and 4 Others